@wakejul Impossible they were brought there, is it? Like it's impossible to find a Rembrandt in St. Petersburg? Only the Romans themselves could've brought it there? If you say so...
and who says man and dinosaur have never lived at the same time? last time i checked, we have crocs, sharks, coelecanths, komodo dragons. all living fossils....
@EdjeBos well, first, supposed hoaxters are not ever liable to be jailed in that sense. he never had to admit it..... i dont get your point. plus, hes dead now
@guineapiggyman What's not to get? He already exported some stones. If he would have admitted they were genuine, he would have been jailed for over 20 yrs. Saying he made the stones was the better option, don't you think? Again, what would you do?
@EdjeBos how would he have been jailed if they WERE genuine?!?! he didnt export them. they never left his country while he was alive! and where do you get your 20 yr jail term from? murderers get that. rapists get that. not people who give someone some stones. if i had faked the stones, i wouldve admitted it, if i hadnt, then i wouldnt admit it, cuz theres NOTHING TO ADMIT. especially on your fucking deathbed! who cares what your do to them when your hours from dying.?????
@guineapiggyman yes he admitted to making them soe that he would not be considered a grave robber which is a serious crime. He even had some made so that he could show that he made them, but those were not as detailed and only took about 8 hrs to make. there are about 15,000 + ... You do the math, how long would it have taken him to make 15,000+ stone carvings? Figuring he would have to sleep, eat, take bathroom breaks, etc. It would have taken him a lifetime .. IMPOSSIBLE!!!
one thing i like about this is, youre using the fact that alexander the great something as meaning it has to be true. which is great, because he also saw ufos, and said that hovering shields in the sky helped hinm win the siege on tyre. bravo
@guineapiggyman More intelligent men then you claim to believe in extra-terrestrial life, so who knows? I don't believe in aliens btw.. Do you? I also did not make this vid.
u do realize that the artifacts found in tuscon were proven hoaxes long ago, right? and god forbid anyone draws an animal that they just thought up. i guess that must mean that every picture or description any man has written down must be right. like the Chtulu, and the hydra, and the 40 ft scorpions.........
@guineapiggyman One fake makes them all fake? Like Nebraska-man? :) Seen any Chtulu's or hydra's in this vid? I don't confuse fact with fantasy like you do appearently..
all you young earth people are soo stupid. theres absolute proof that the earth is way older. and that man didnt live with dinosaurs, and that there was never any firebreathing dragons
@EdjeBos lol, ok. for one, how about the tree ring dating? what about radio dating? what about universal inflation? what about the current state of our sun? i could go on, but ill let you take ur time with those. i knwo they may shake your understanding a little, hun
@guineapiggyman Hun? You make me giggle.. :) Nothing shaken, bud. Tree-rings? Not all rings are annual. Radio-dating? Circumstantial. Universal inflation? 'God stretches the heavens'. I believe the Bible, and what'ya know: it explains it waaay before man knew it did so. The current state of our sun? What about it? Time taken, appr. 3 minutes.
menes wasnt the first pharoah.... and you do realize that the ancient would stumble upon dino bones in cliffs and such, and when you find a skelton intact, its easy to imagine what the animal looked like. so what? not to mention that there are details of all the carvings and drawings PROVING they didnt live with them, they got small things wrong, but if they saw the living creature, y would they get it wrong/?
@guineapiggyman How would they 'stumble upon dino bones' if these creatures lived thousands of yrs before they did? And not everybody is an artist.. And it's not just about depictions in this vid. What about the reports from Alexander the Great or the Chinese emperor? No storytelling there, just reporting what they saw/did.
@EdjeBos lol try millions of years before : ) simple. First burial. Fossilization/sedimentation. Possible uplift event, does not matter but these are most exposed. Then EROSION through aeolian and fluvial processes. The erosion exposed fossils and bam, you get skeletons of creatures that can inspire myths. Here is a question, if dinosaurs were wiped out by flood, how were they excluded? size? elephants are larger than some species. Please tell me why they were excluded
@braedencowbrough Myths is one thing. But like I said, reports of experiences and livestock(?), that's another thing. The idea evolution happened MAKES it mythological. Nothing else.
Noah did bring dino's on the ark (young ones). They got extinct because of man invading their habitat, hunting, etc., but they never got big anymore because of the dramatic change in climate and atmosphere. The earth was immensely different before the Flood. watch?v=rxf40yO7I60
@EdjeBos Okay I watched the video, all I have to say is, I DONT HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO FUCKING SHOW HOW IT IS TOTALLY WRONG. Inbox me and I can tell you why. Firstly evolution and geology are not the same thing! ffs. Next the flood is one thing, but noahs arc is completely different. watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w&playnext=1&list=PLB11AC24C5B38EAF9 it will teach you some things, and its funny :) The ark has to be the hardest thing to support, simply because of everything that would go wrong with it.
@EdjeBos First and foremost, inbreeding depression from only two of each animals. How about the carnivores, insectivores? every time they eat they wipe out a species. Next, what about once they land. no plant life, they would all just die. How did he deal with polar animals? all the fish would be dead too if hydroplate hypothesis is what you want. What about the parasitic organisms? Honestly, I could spend a full day saying reasons why it never happened! inbox me please!
@EdjeBos Also, stop getting your facts from wiki. I followed links through the wikipedia page for the glen canyon 1983 flood and what do you know it let me to a creationist website? wow, why not say a glen canyon website explaining their history... hmmmm something funky and its not the old bananas in ray comforts closet.
@braedencowbrough Wiki?? What wiki-link did I give? I gave a link to a vid, nothing more. And you did not adress anything from my comment. Let's stick to the subject please.
@EdjeBos Alright i want to talk about the grand canyon. I am not a geologist, im a biochemist. However I do know enough basic geology to show why the cavitation flood hypothesis is incorrect. First, flood paths and erosion paths are very different. for one, erosion is slow, so the water will always take the path of least resistance. This is why you get meandering channels, which the grand canyon is. That is the snaking path of the where the water erodes the rock. You can see this is currently.
@braedencowbrough ugh okay lets get the assertions first- hydroplate theory? entailing the water below the surface. the water bukkake of the earth, all sedimentation, all fossils, coal and oil, mid-atlantic ridge, and of course the formation of the grand canyon? Any other ones i will deal with them too, this is gonna take a while.
You obviously miss the point Hermunkle. Scientists have unearthed several intact fossils. Some of which still had skin on them. We can tell alot about how the dinosaur looked through modern technology. That shouldn't supprise us; However, how did these 1000 year old cultures know what the dino's looked like? Either they were perfect guessers, or they saw them first hand. Think about it.
@apman505 Id still have to agree with many others just because you can draw something dosent make it real but if I take a step further as I am asked I am much closer to this being poissible proof that man and dinosaur co-existed and this may in fact disprove evolution my argument isnt wholey with creationism I would go as far as saying that both theorys have serious holes for me to accept either one of them. I just think the man dinosaur conection is not the one thats going to convice me of God
@apman505 Okay you are incorrect. No skin of dinosaurs has ever been recovered. What has been recovered though are good preservations that still maintain certain key proteins associated with skin. One of which is collagen. This is similar to red blood cells in trex bone argument, it was red blood cells but protein remnants of them. Here is one, why is it we are able to sometimes find cells and tissues of animals that lived 10000 years ago, while we cant seem to find any from dinosaurs?
@braedencowbrough I tried to link several articals about the dino-skin find. there are many out there, but I cannot link them here. Google search dinosaur skin found and you'll get a bunch. Tne national Geographic is pretty good.
@apman505 ugh.... national geographic is not a good source... magazines are generally not good sources... either are creationist websites. It is always best to go to the source, the original papers....
@apman505 Mineralized soft-tissue structure and chemistry in a mummified hadrosaur from the Hell Creek Formation, North Dakota (USA) is one of the original articles on one of the best mummified remains dinosaurs, the north dakota hadrosaur. I know it may be a little difficult to understand but skin is not actually present. The majority of the material as been mineralized. It was done so when that the minerals maintained cell boundaries and the microstructure of the skin, but not the skin itself
@braedencowbrough OK, you are nit picking now! The whole point to my original post is, scientist today have a pretty good idea of what certain Dinosaurs looked like. If you believe that is wrong, take it up with the science community. I stand by my original comments.
@apman505 I don't know. The original claim was scientists found dinosaurs with soft tissues and the only way 10000 year old civilizations would know what they looked like it through actually seeing them. This is not correct. As scientists have begun to understand is some dinosaurs developed feathers which don't come up in ancient pottery. It isn't difficult to understand what something looked like through their fossils.
@apman505 The main point is we know the timescale of modern homosapiens, roughly 500000 years. Even fewer for being the only homo species (homo neandtholus). We know when dinosaurs became extinct through the geological record and radiometric dating. Both methods support the other. We never find dinosaurs past certain points (okay birds are dinosaurs i know) but I mean the atypical dinosaurs including pterosaurs.
@apman505 Scientists are now being able to estimate the colour of dinosaurs due to pigments found in bird feathers and pigment remnants. We know what it takes to fossilize bone, we know timescales. Upon that if dinosaurs lived 10000 years ago we would find non-fossilized bones far more commonly instead of 95% and up being fossilized. Please just show ONE example of dinosaurs dating to 10000 years ago. Pottery is one thing, but man can picture many things in their minds. (Alien cave drawings)?
@braedencowbrough search youtube for "A MUST SEE - The History of Dinosaurs". It is a pretty fair Documentry, and explains some of the problems with the Dinosaur finds.
@apman505 Okay again, documentaries are not a good source. There are documentaries on everything from creationism, to Holocaust denial, to ancient aliens, to whatever someone can imagine. I never trust documentaries after what I learned about editing tricks and how someone can say something completely different from what the original meaning was. Always look at the original papers or gtfo
@braedencowbrough I did not say Documentaries are good sources. I said this particular Documentary is pretty good. You can watch it and then research the documention and sources sited at the end of the video. I did the research and found them to be very credible. I still may hedge on some things, but it has opened my eyes a bit.(along with other things I have researched).
I have always believed Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but lately I have waivered on that view.
I must admit one of my least favorite arguments for Creationism is this "If they made drawing of it they must have seen it" I am willing to hear a sound argument for creationism and have heard many that make me wonder but if I go by the above pretense I have to asume that all the hollywood monsters and video games and fantastic creatures drawn up in storybooks must have been running around and sure that might work with an angel or demon maybe even an alien but floating eyes maybe tentacula?
@Hermunkle For me the most sound argument for creationism is DNA and the complexity of the cell. The build-in code-protection mechanism for DNA is also ín the DNA-code. It's build-in! And it not only hampers evolution, it makes it impossible imo. It protects the species itself. It's purpose ís to prevent evolution. Darwin had no idea of this or of DNA itself. The theory of evolution is outdated.. I invite you to the world of real science. Be a rebel! :)
How are you being a rebel whe you still go along with old world theology, If you reject evolution you might as well deny all the scientific invansments of the 20th centery. If we still went along with creationism, we would not have all the medical advances we have now, anti-biotics, chemotheropy, ect. We would not understand how AIDS works. I just cant go along and reject a sound scientific theory for religious "authority". Science in it's self is anti authoritative!
@pbrskater26 What YOU believe is a sound scientific theory ís your religion. You give it authority. Explain to me the relation between evolution and anti-biotics and/or chemo-therapy. How and why things work has nothing to do with how it came to be. Many important scientific discoveries were made by ye creationists.
Why are there only pictures and carvings then? If they were THAT recent, we would've found tons of bones. Couldn't these people have discovered dinosaur fossils and made pictures? And then by word of mouth, the stories of these creatures reached their way into our stories?
@DeathlyDavid What recent is THAT recent to you? There áre writings and bones found. But keep in mind: they were not called dinosaurs in 'them days'. Also the difference in climate, oxygen-level ánd airpressure before the Flood of Noah allowed them to get much bigger than after. So there are only big ones found as fossils. That's how things went down, so that's what we find.
@EdjeBos Pff the flood of noah would've killed all marine life on earth, so your argument is fudged.What type of water is in the ocean? Salf-water. What do fish in the ocean live in? A concentration of salt-water. What is rain? Fresh Water. It rained for 40 day/nights. What happens when salt meets fresh water? Dilution. Kills marine life. Also, it disrupts ocean currents. The gulf stream would be non existent if Noah's ark was real. Don't believe me? Try it on your saltwater pet fish
@EdjeBos Also, the ocean waters were said to have traveled at tremendous speed. If this happened for 40 days all around the world, how did the fish eat for 40 days/nights? The (according to bible) oceans of the earth were moving at such speed that a fish couldn't find food. Add that to Freshwater being mixed with salt-water and we've got a dead fish. Then there's the extreme pressure of millions of gallons of extra water. Then there's all the dirt that is flushed from land into the ocean.
@EdjeBos Another thing, if the flood, which occurred 2900 BC. Are you kidding me? Is that how you explain how humans were able to survive with dinosaurs? "They got smaller" Your proof? *Oh Humans were able to survive thats my proof* No that isn't, that is speculation assuming dinosaurs were already alive. How did dinosaurs survive on earth if Noah didn't take any on the ark? Why couldn't the ancients have just found their bones like we did and draw them? They're just as smart.
@DeathlyDavid If you ridicule what I believe, I will not debate you. If you have serious questions, ask them in an appropriate manner please. If not, stick with your own beliefs.
*Oh Humans were able to survive thats my proof* Did I say anything like that? If you think you know all the answers, don't ask questions. If you want serious answers, ask serious questions.
@EdjeBos Let me ask the question then. How did any marine life survive during the flood when there were extremely turbulent waters, a mixture of diluted salt water as WELL as eroded dirt that mixed into the water. How was an olive tree able to survive when supposedly the ENTIRE earth was covered in water for almost a year.
@DeathlyDavid Your view of the pre-Flood world and that of the happenings during the Flood itself is totally askew. Watch a Hovind-vid on the Flood to gain some insight on what we believe happened. You have to be able to consider other options. If you're convinced you're right on your view, you don't really consider other options. A scientific mind is not afraid of other options. Watch the Hovind-theory on my channel and we'll talk. :)
@EdjeBos Isn't that the guy who is "against sinning" yet he gets put in jail for tax fraud HAHA. Hypocrite. I already saw the Episode by Thunderf00t "Why people laugh at creationists." He completely smacked down Hovind's argument (Episode 3 & 4 I believe).
@DeathlyDavid Thunderfoot's arguments are all based on circular reasoning and assumed 'facts'. Let me ask you this: if Darwin was found to be a practising pedophile, would you reject his teachings? Does the 'crime' of not paying enough taxes have anything to do with his arguments for the Flood of Noah? If you are unable to set aside your presumptions, you are unable to discuss any arguments.
@EdjeBos Darwin is a "scientist" only. He doesn't HAVE to be "morally" correct and has never claimed to be so. Religious people on the other hand call guidance from a book that has the 10 commandments that they are "supposed" to follow. Since this guy is a religious educator, he's supposed to set an example for others, no? Anyway, where did I say that his crime invalidated his argument? You are assuming. Assumed facts? Scientific LAWS is the word you're looking for.
@DeathlyDavid So, a theologian is a scientist? That's what Darwin's educational background was, as you probably know.. Why did you bring up him being jailed for taxfraud when all I did was recommend you watch a certain vid of his? Not-religious people don't need to set an example? But I can agree with somebodies scientific arguments without agreeing with certain actions/dispositions. Can you? Gonna watch the vid or not?
So, following this logic, in the 13th century animals could speak, a lion was king, and a fox called Reynaerde tricked every other animal?
In Egypt, there were lions with human heads? In greece, humans with the body of a horse, flying lions, mermaids, flying serpents with nine heads that regrew immediately when hacked off. In Persia, maneaters with the body of a lion, the head of a man, and the tail of a scorpion?
And about the ark story: Yes, many cultures around the world have flood myths. That's because the cradle of civilization, the city of Ur, was between two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. When they seasonally flooded, so did the valley where all of civilization then existed. As far as they knew, the entire known world had flooded. This myth kept up until the entire world had been explored, so our myth now is that the flood was worldwide.
This shows tons of pictures of classical artwork of dragons or dinosaurs. But those cultures had artwork of a lot of other absurd creatures and gods. Did those also exist?
This is laughably stupid. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.
Let's say that I drew a picture of a fantastical creature. In thousands of years, if that picture was discovered, would that be evidence that I lived with that creature? Because, according to you, why would I draw something if I had never seen it?
The one and only reason you can not answer this questions is that you CAN NOT answer them, as simple as that. Your claims are absurd. There is no possibility whatsoever that a global flood cold have happened! Evolutionary Theory has proofs while Creationism is exclusively based on religious bias that are arrogantly imposed into people without any proven claim.
@ZZzzzzzWhat It may have gone over your head, but I answered two. You can find the answer to your third question yourself. Or explain why you are unable to do so.
@EdjeBos lolwut? you cant answer my questions so therefore you insult. For your information, english is not my native language. And yes, i'm still waiting for those answers..
see @EdjeBos , this is why creationists disable comments. You guys can't backup your claims when someone questions them amd forget that most atheists know the bible even better then you.
@ZZzzzzzWhat 'creationists disable comments'.. I don't.
Tell me, are you in some way or form unable to do research on the 'questions' you have? Your questions have nothing to do with any claim made by this vid. And thát's what I mean: you are 'waiting' for answers. Go look!! But to help you on your way and to answer your first question, I believe watch?v=zKO-vTwYCo8. So that's two questions answered. Think you can manage the last one on your own?
So 'find the answers for yourself' seems quite convenient. I know my answer, and very much secure with their truth, thats why i'm an atheist who loves science.
If you don't want/can not answer all of them thats with you, someday a creationist will but i truly doubt it.
@ZZzzzzzWhat Not searching for answers yourself isn't convinient? Like I said, not here for answers. Go watch another Dawkins-vid with him saying life on earth is seeded here by something from space. That's how scientific you atheists are. Laughable..
@EdjeBos How can you mention Evolution if you don't even know whats a scientific theory.
btw - and without answering by PM -
Tell us:
- How could the continental drift from Pangaea to our actual continent be possible in just 6000y? And how could there be so many ppl on Earth(6.92 billion) in less than 6000y?
- Did the unicord also existed? what about the esfinge? there are statues of it in Greece and Egypt.
- There are Hominidae Skulls (not pictures or cravings!), do you deny their existance?
@ZZzzzzzWhat You're not here for answers bud, or you would have found them already. 'Coz if you can type, you can search. Or did you ask someone to type this for you?
I think this proves that humans have long had very active imaginations, and stumbled across a few fossils along the way. And you're suggesting that Beowulfe is a historical document? ROFL
I'm confused and have a question. If the earth is around 6000 years old, is the entire universe 6000 years old? If so, how can we see light from stars that are farther than 6000 lightyears away? If not, what happened at this spot in the universe 6000 years ago that caused the earth to materialize?
@gunny2020 i heard from somebody that the Bible does not mention the creation of the Universe, just earth and its inhabitants and ofcourse, the sun (light).
You people need to get a grip, If you think man inhabited the earth with dinosaurs.... do you not think there would be a little more historical corroborative evidence. I don't remember reading about any Roman Legion being set upon by velociraptors. St George Killed the Dragon in mythical terms. You may aswell say that medusa had snakes as hair and Perseus rode a Pegasus and that Minotaurs did live in a maze. LOGIC WILL PREVAIL..... you charlatans.
@MrNarrative No, I am sorry, but it is you that needs to adjust your opinion on what we believe happened with the Flood. Once you have a true understanding of the forces at work during that event, you would not have any problem at all with it. This world screems 'FLOOD!!' and 'CREATION!!!'. From the complexity of the tiniest creatures to the interdependence of EVERYTHING. Too bad logic will only prevail with a few. Care to become one of them? I guess not..
@EdjeBos Ok listen. I believe Youtube brings out the worst in people, and I also do not want to get into an argument with someone who clearly shares a highly different view to me. I envy people with faith. I really do. I just don't have it myself. I only have a beef with new world creationists who are determined to indoctrinate children with lies about the age of the earth and the dogma of burning in hell. It isn't fair, and it spits on the face of science. Do you honestly believe in the flood?
@MrNarrative Honestly and wholeheartedly. I'm also a critical thinker. I suppose you can't imagine, but I'm very distrustfull when somebody tells me 'this is the truth', no matter what topic. Especially when this truth has a direct influence on my opinion on what 'life' is. And I also believe the earth is around 6000 yrs old. So to you I'm a real nutter I guess. You probably think I haven't given it much thought or was indoctrinated from birth for me to believe this. If you do, really not true.
@EdjeBos Ok, that's your prerogative. So long as you understand that 6000 years ago, was after the start of what we conceive to be the agricultural revolution. But as I said, your belief system. Good Luck with it. I would ask though, purely out of curiosity what has lead you hold this as truth. Religion? research? both?
@MrNarrative Right on: 'what we conceive'. It's concieved. The whole theory only works in minds of people. Science hás disproved the possibility of evolution, especially abiogenesis. I KNOW it's not evolution, but it's the start of it. If the start appears impossible, one needs to reconsider. But (almost) no one does. Is someone dumb for doubting something with reasons that are based on scientfic research? It ís proven that the chance for a single cell to come about by chance is impossible.
@MrNarrative -cont- But I'm not saying you are calling me stupid. I'm saying that you would not be stupid for believing scientific conclusions. If abiogenesis is impossible, life did not appear by mear natural causes. That much cán be said for sure. Some try to involve aliens in our initial start, but that's just shifting the problem of evolution/abiogenesis to 'their planet', with even much less time for them to 'evolve to spacetravel', if you catch my drift. So what remains?
@EdjeBos Ok..where from here you ask. Good question. I guess by stating (rather boldly I might add) that "science has disproved the possibility of evolution, especially abiogenesis" you are willing to except scientific research to a point where it corroborates your story. Then abandon it.
@EdjeBos Cont-You have said that you believe the world to be 6000 years old, and in your previous statement you have used evidence about the unlikeliness of abiogenesis as discovered by scientists whereby they have gathered data by studying rocks of over 3 billion years in age. As it happens, neither abiogenesis nor evolution have been disproved by scientists. I believe religion to be a conjured fantasy from a simpler time, when the earth was flat and when Hades guarded the underworld
And the inca stones were all proven to have been faked. The people who made them admitted to it after they were caught. It was all a scam to get tourists to spend money.
@Tagukon I admit wholeheartedly this is circumstantial evidence. But of the same kind as the pyramids. The oldest one is by far the best preserved one. That means the earlier builders were better at it. And there are ANCIENT pyramids all over the world. This combined with highly accurate maps of Antarctica, batteries in Baghdad, the Nasca lines wich suggest (balloon?)flight and advanced optical technology, oopart, etc. All these things are real, ancient and only a mystery to evolutionists.
@chuteleach The South American carvings are the only things even half impressive I’ve ever seen on the subject, but even there you can’t really draw anything conclusive from it. Think about it, humans have had a stead brain capacity since they migrated into South America, meaning if they found any fossils at all they could extrapolate anything we could from the same find. Maybe even more so considering the butchering they would have done to their own kills.
@Roper122 History tells us that there have been kings/emperors, I believe in China, that had dragonfeeders in their entourage.
Lepricons, unicorns, etc. are/were usually depicted in a fantasy-setting. Furthermore, the dino-depictions are more accurate than most schoolbook drawings. Skinsamples with a circular pattern were found, just like the ancient cave-drawings show. So who made what up?
@Roper122 Why do I 'have to' grant it for all? You're the one that 'has to' to keep evolution 'reality'. No one but me? You just keep ignoring half of what I say, close your eyes and drift back into your evolutionary dreamworld. Funny how you guys twist and turn to make history fit your worldview. Like the term 'oopart' for the Baghdad batteries found. Only to evo's are these things puzzling. And still you just don't see it's you who believes in fairytales..
@EdjeBos Wow... the evos are the one's living in a self concocted fairytale they twisted out of actual historical events? You can literally take ANY argument and build a case for it, and you anti-evolutionists are the worst at it. Not to mention half of what you showed doesn’t even look like a dinosaur. “Oh, a lion with a really long neck, it must be a dinosaur rather than a symbolic representation of power.”
@EdjeBos I suppose the "dragons" kept in China and elsewhere couldn't have been alligators, crocodiles, or Komodo Dragons right? Salt water crocodiles can grow up to 30' long, that would make for a fairly convincing dragon. Merely depicting something isn't indicative of first-hand experience. There are works of art online right now depicting dragons, unicorns, trolls, the phoenix, etc. in real life settings. Have you read Harry Potter? Are wizards real?Do these depictions indicate reality?
Nice music, but that's about as far as I can go as far as compliments are concerned. I would recommend that the creator of this video does a basic inquiry into how scientists use sedimentary layers to date fossils. If dinosaurs co-existed with humans, we would find them in the same sedimentary layers as fossilized humans. Alas, we do not. The last dinosaurs roamed the Earth 65+ million years ago. Mammals have dominated the fossil record since then.
@UniverseExpanding A basic ininquiry? Why don't you try to find skeptic evolution-scientists. I recommend an in-depth study. Anyone can find scientists who agree with it. But do they all? And if not, why not? Expand your Universe. Peace.
@TriggerHappy923 I believe some sea-dwelling dinosaurs still exist. There is some footage of them and way too many eyewhitesses. Like Nessie? Bet there's more then one. Some still exist in area's as far as possible from humans. There are also reports from swamplands in Afrika about small bronto-like dino's. Evolutionists say they died 'millions of years ago' and man has never seen living dinosaurs. I think they are wrong on both accounts.
There were no sea-dwelling dinosaurs. All dinosaurs were terrestrial. You're thinking of aquatic reptiles, like plesiosaurs. And they did die out 65 million years ago along with all large bodied animals. No bones of modern mammal of any kind have ever been found along side dinosaur fossils. If you care about the scientific facts, that is.
The other video blocked me. Not very open minded. Since the beginning is so full of errors, it really doesn't matter what follows. The premise is silly. And I suppose you're going to argue that 'big evil science' is keeping their work suppressed. If it had any merit it'd be in a scientific journal and not on YouTube. Larry wasn't lecturing a group of scientists, he was talking to naive fools like you.
@dudev Again you suppose. Ask. Don't suppose. And I'm a naive fool. Alright, keep on assuming. I have lots of debates with evolutionists, but none of them are as closed minded as you are. You just are unable to have a conversation. And I háve tried. Again, I wish you the best. But just assume I'm lying.
No human artifacts or human fossils have ever been found in the same sedimentary layers as dinosaur fossils. No bears, no cats, no dogs, no horses, no rabbits, no sheep, no pigs have ever been found in the same layers with dinosaurs. Do you see a pattern?
And imaginary creatures appear in a lot of ancient art. The minotaur isn't real. The unicorns isn't real. Pegasus isn't real.
@dudev Wrong. Once they've found a human skull in a layer onder a dino. And you believe in the geological column-fallacy. There are layers observed all around the globe. But nowhere in the way the geological column is displayed. Different places show different layers, but nowhere together like that. It's man-made. Fictive. Did you know they can't date a rock unless they know what strata it is found in? That's circular reasoning. Not science.
Please name this skull. Who's the scientists who found it? Where was it found? Where is it now? Or are you going to tell me that all scientists are liars? Are you a conspiracy nut?
They date columns using periodic layers that have very specific radiocative 'fingerprints' and mineral contents. For example, the K-T clay layer is virtually the same chemically over the entire Earth. It is unique, so one can use it to date the layers above and below.
@dudev I will look into it. But only if you can have this discussion in a civil, respectfull manner. To call me a conspiracy 'nut' tells me you jump to conclusions with very little info. Bad habit. The simularities between the layers can indeed proove they are the same age. What that age is, can not be proven by either carbon- or radiometric dating. If it could, they would not NEED TO KNOW the layer it was found in.
I didn't call you a conspiracy nut. I asked if you were one. And there's an enormous range of characteristics between the layers. Some are igneous, some are sedimentary. Some are marine, some are terrestrial. Some contain radioactive elements, others don't. Some are narrow, others are thick. Some are filled with one kind of tiny marine creatures, others are filled with another kind.
I gave the example of the K-T layer which is when the dinosaurs (and much of life) went extinct. Above that layer, oceanic fossils disappear for a long period. This layer is found worldwide, always with the same characteristics. The radioactive elements in the K-T have the same 'fingerprint' as meteorites. The K-T is unique -- it's a black clay layer, about 1 inch thick, with very specific minerals, and radio isotopes. Look it up if you don't believe me.
@dudev Sorry for the delay. I have looked it up. The fingerprint is because of iridium. That is also found in our earth's core. The supposedly impact crater could also have been enormous eruptions from the earth's core. The even global spread of iridium is more consistent with that possibility. And that scenario is also in line with a global flood. There are more then 250 ancient flood accounts worldwide, with striking simularities. Too much to ignore, imo. Ever considered that possibility?
I'm well read on this particular subject of the K-T meteor. First, the level of Iridium in the K-T is too large to have been deposited by eruptions. The layer is worldwide and about an inch thick. Also, eruptions deposit many other types of minerals which are not found at all in the K-T layer. Yet the proportions of minerals and isotopes match exactly those of meteorites. And the earth is littered with crater holes like the moon, except on earth they are weathered.
Also, what's called fractured quartz is found in the K-T layer. These tiny quartz minerals are only made under enormous pressure --like during an impact. They are always found at nuclear blast sites --after underground nuclear testing. The fractured quartz is never found at sites of volcanic eruptions.
The K-T crater has also been identified in Mexico.
@dudev I wasn't talking about normal vulcanic eruptions. They come from close to the surface and don't leave creaters. And many of the craters found on other planets are also formed by eruptions from within. If these quartz-particles were made by the impact, they would be found at the impact, under the meteorite. It is not very likely they would have been dispersed evenly around the globe. So I dare to presume that they were formed in the earths core. The pressure would be sufficient.
The quartz particles are localized around meteor impact sites, not spread worldwide. The Chicxulub crater in Mexico is about 110 miles in diameter. The particles are only formed with a SUDDEN pressure cause by a shock wave. No eruption could ever do it. And I pointed out that the K-T layer does NOT contain the minerals found in eruption material. The proportion and content only match meteorites.
If you Google the news from early March you'll find that a international panel of scientists have reached a consensus that a meteorite (asteroid) caused the Cretaceous extinction. As reported by the BBC and other news outlets:
"They reached the consensus after conducting the most wide-ranging analysis yet of the evidence. Writing in Science journal, they rule out alternative theories such as large-scale volcanism."
Videos can help, but I find books to be more accurate and less bias. They're often written by the scientists who did the original work. And they are edited for accuracy by other scientists. Just saying.
@dudev Sorry that it took so long. But I found it. Skull # KNM-ER 1470 found by Richard Leakey in 1972. It wasn´t found under dino-fossils, I remembered that wrong, but it was found under a vulcanic ash-layer previously dated about 200 myo. Then they found the skull, dated again because of that and all of a sudden it´s .5 to 2.6 myo. Big difference. Makes the dating seem VERY unreliable, imo. They make the numbers fit the theory.
Sorry, but you got the facts all wrong there. The non-human hominid skull (KNM-ER 1470) was NOT found by Richard Leakey, but by his associate Bernard Ngeneo. It was first dated at 3 million years, NOT 200 myo. But with more testing the date was revised at 1.9 myo, which is the date currently accepted as reliable. The 1.9 myo date also puts it inline with other finds. I don't know where you got that 200 number. because no anthropologist ever made that claim.
@dudev The find is attributed to him also. Look it up. What I said was that the layer it was found under was first dated 250 myo. And after the skull was found it was dated between 0.5 and 2.6 myo. Not the skull. Look at the info from both sides.
The 1973 paper in the journal Nature by R. Leakey states the skull was found in sediment between two volcanic layers. The bottom layer is dated at 3.4 myo. So the top layer must be younger, logically. The reason the top layer was initially mis-dated is because it's mixed in with redeposited material. It's in a hilly lake and river region where erosion sometimes redeposits older sediment onto younger. Subsequent tests proved it's 1.9 myo. An example why they measure more than once.
@dudev It wás tested more then once. So what ever the reasons might be for the 'misinterpretation' of the first date, they wouldn't have redated it without the skull. And when they did they 'appeared to be off' by a couple of hundred million years. If you keep on believing science can not be wrong on this, you are gonna look stupid one day.
They don't date fossils directly, they date the sediment layers. The KNM 1470 skull sat in between. The bottom layer is 3.4 myo. The top layer, like I said, is a mixture of material -- some dated at 200 myo, and some dated at 1.9 myo. The 200 myo material was washed into the 1.9 myo material --it's called erosion. Water goes downhill. And what a coincidence (sarcasm) that the bottom layer (3.4 myo) lines up with the top layer's younger date of 1.9 myo.
@dudev If they would not have found the skull, they would not have dated the layers again. They re-dated them. Afterwards. It's all circular reasoning. You assume that they dated them appropriately, but they do not. Your trust in 'science' is more blind then my trust in the Bible. I came to trust it. By doing research with an open mind. Don't rush to conclusions or generalize. You don't know anything about me.
Radiometric dating is done by unbiased labs. And you don't even understand the science well enough to criticize it. You don't like answers it gives so you attack it. If the shroud of Turin had been dated to the 1st century instead of the 13th, Christians would have happily accepted the radiometric dating. Instead they attack the answer. Like I said originally, no dinosaurs have ever been found with human remains. You can't explain that with creationism.
@dudev Attack? You're the one feeling attacked. I just don't agree and say so. I believe the shroud to be fake anyway, like I know the RC church to be fake. But that's another story. Dino's lived in the same time with man, not with them. Like hurdes of elephants don't mix with people, so with a flood, they would not have been buried together. People went to higher ground, swam, lived longer, got buried later.
That's pathetic. Your logic fails. 1) If all dating is unreliable, then you cannot use it to support a young earth, either. 2) If science is unreliable and often wrong that doesn't make your position right by default. There's more than two options. So you need to provide evidence to support your position, which you haven't done.
Also, human fossils are mixed in with all sorts of extinct mammals. Weren't dinos in the great flood? So your attempted explanation fails.
@dudev With dating they compare the results with a model. The results are correct, the model is debatable. I don't say my position is right by default. But it is optional. You are the one who thinks he's right by default. All the evidence can be and is explained otherwise. Both ways. I just believe mine makes more sense. I can explain everything by observable, testable natural processes. Like you say you do.
It makes more sense to believe in a bible story? That's silly. Please explain how people knew the ENTIRE world was flooded? If my city was flooded, how would I know the rest of the world is flooded too? Especially in a time without satellite photos, GPS, or accurate maps.
@dudev If it was, how many people would live to tell? Only those aboard the ark would. Over 250 legends across the world tell such a story. Some call that mythology, others call it history. Ten stories I would consider the first. Over 250? That's a stubborn legend. If they would be all local, they would differ much more then they do.
" Only those aboard the ark would." ---But how would they know? Unless they traveled the globe, they couldn't possibly know the entire world was flooded.
@dudev Noah landed on a mountain. They were covered at first. And God told Noah he would. The whole idea for building the ark wasn't Noah's idea. But you don't believe in a God, so to you that can not have happened. As I've told you, I've come to learn that the Bible is true for more reasons then the flood. When you study it along the history of the world, it will amaze you.
Stop avoiding the question. You said the only witnesses were on the Ark? How did they know the entire world was flooded? The couldn't have known. If god told Noah then it's all just an assumption on your part. You're assuming the story is true.
Thanks for verifying my hypothesis that every creationist I encounter is a smarmy hypocrite. What you actually mean when you say "Have a nice life" is "Burn in hell for not believing as I do". That's the difference between us -- I don't think you deserve eternal punishment for your beliefs.
@dudev Again, you jump to conclusions, without any reason. I actaully wish you the best and hope you will come to use your head. You have to stop assuming things about me or anything you don't know enough about. Ask if something is the case, then make an informed decision. The reason I end my discussion with you is for that very reason. With regret, my friend.
If your own brother, your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death... Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 13. Although Deuteronomy is chock-full of reasons to punish people. But John 14:6 is one of the most quoted passages by Christians --"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Mark 16:16 --"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned."
@dudev You said I had to think you deserve eternal punishment. I'm not the judge here. Consider this: if God is real, you live because He gave you live. All life comes from Him. If He created everything, He created you. All you do in return for the gift of your life is scoff. He gave you life. He will judge it. And the way to avoid that you mentioned yourself above. And I don't consider myself better then you.
@dudev Written before Christ, for the Jews. And it is specific for them THEN, that 'secretly enticed' others. About people how knew God and still did that. When someone turns from God, he puts his eternal life on the line. So someone responsable can be considered a murderer. So it was a deathpenalty for a murderer with intent. Doesn't apply to you. Always read in context. In fact, keep on reading.
Genesis was written before Jesus, for the Jews. As were the 10 commandments. And the book of Mark is New Testament. The bible is open to wide interpretation as the thousands of Christian sects demonstrate. So your interpretation is no more valid than the next. Most Christians do believe in hell and preach that non-believers will go there.
This has been flagged as spam show
I dont want to live on this planet anymore
MrMontyBurnsDog 1 month ago
did egyptians have the first virgin birth god or did the hindi? Haven't the chinese known there were dragons forever now?
Zoofiend 3 months ago
roman artifacts can not be found in Tuscon Arizona because the romans never even heard of this land that we live now so it is impossible
wakejul 6 months ago
@wakejul Impossible they were brought there, is it? Like it's impossible to find a Rembrandt in St. Petersburg? Only the Romans themselves could've brought it there? If you say so...
EdjeBos 6 months ago
and who says man and dinosaur have never lived at the same time? last time i checked, we have crocs, sharks, coelecanths, komodo dragons. all living fossils....
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
and the ICA stones are all hoaxes too. the farmer admitted to that a while ago
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
@guineapiggyman If he didn't he would have been jailed a looooooong time.. What would you do?
EdjeBos 6 months ago
@EdjeBos well, first, supposed hoaxters are not ever liable to be jailed in that sense. he never had to admit it..... i dont get your point. plus, hes dead now
guineapiggyman 5 months ago
@guineapiggyman What's not to get? He already exported some stones. If he would have admitted they were genuine, he would have been jailed for over 20 yrs. Saying he made the stones was the better option, don't you think? Again, what would you do?
EdjeBos 5 months ago
@EdjeBos how would he have been jailed if they WERE genuine?!?! he didnt export them. they never left his country while he was alive! and where do you get your 20 yr jail term from? murderers get that. rapists get that. not people who give someone some stones. if i had faked the stones, i wouldve admitted it, if i hadnt, then i wouldnt admit it, cuz theres NOTHING TO ADMIT. especially on your fucking deathbed! who cares what your do to them when your hours from dying.?????
guineapiggyman 5 months ago
@guineapiggyman
AndyG792 3 months ago
@guineapiggyman yes he admitted to making them soe that he would not be considered a grave robber which is a serious crime. He even had some made so that he could show that he made them, but those were not as detailed and only took about 8 hrs to make. there are about 15,000 + ... You do the math, how long would it have taken him to make 15,000+ stone carvings? Figuring he would have to sleep, eat, take bathroom breaks, etc. It would have taken him a lifetime .. IMPOSSIBLE!!!
AndyG792 3 months ago
@guineapiggyman actually ... several lifetimes.
AndyG792 3 months ago
@AndyG792 ???
guineapiggyman 3 months ago
one thing i like about this is, youre using the fact that alexander the great something as meaning it has to be true. which is great, because he also saw ufos, and said that hovering shields in the sky helped hinm win the siege on tyre. bravo
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
@guineapiggyman More intelligent men then you claim to believe in extra-terrestrial life, so who knows? I don't believe in aliens btw.. Do you? I also did not make this vid.
EdjeBos 6 months ago
u do realize that the artifacts found in tuscon were proven hoaxes long ago, right? and god forbid anyone draws an animal that they just thought up. i guess that must mean that every picture or description any man has written down must be right. like the Chtulu, and the hydra, and the 40 ft scorpions.........
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
@guineapiggyman One fake makes them all fake? Like Nebraska-man? :) Seen any Chtulu's or hydra's in this vid? I don't confuse fact with fantasy like you do appearently..
EdjeBos 6 months ago
all you young earth people are soo stupid. theres absolute proof that the earth is way older. and that man didnt live with dinosaurs, and that there was never any firebreathing dragons
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
@guineapiggyman Absolute proof? Give me one. Your best. And this stupid creationist will make you look more stupid than you think I am! :)
EdjeBos 6 months ago
@EdjeBos lol, ok. for one, how about the tree ring dating? what about radio dating? what about universal inflation? what about the current state of our sun? i could go on, but ill let you take ur time with those. i knwo they may shake your understanding a little, hun
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
@guineapiggyman Hun? You make me giggle.. :) Nothing shaken, bud. Tree-rings? Not all rings are annual. Radio-dating? Circumstantial. Universal inflation? 'God stretches the heavens'. I believe the Bible, and what'ya know: it explains it waaay before man knew it did so. The current state of our sun? What about it? Time taken, appr. 3 minutes.
EdjeBos 6 months ago
menes wasnt the first pharoah.... and you do realize that the ancient would stumble upon dino bones in cliffs and such, and when you find a skelton intact, its easy to imagine what the animal looked like. so what? not to mention that there are details of all the carvings and drawings PROVING they didnt live with them, they got small things wrong, but if they saw the living creature, y would they get it wrong/?
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
@guineapiggyman How would they 'stumble upon dino bones' if these creatures lived thousands of yrs before they did? And not everybody is an artist.. And it's not just about depictions in this vid. What about the reports from Alexander the Great or the Chinese emperor? No storytelling there, just reporting what they saw/did.
EdjeBos 6 months ago
@EdjeBos lol try millions of years before : ) simple. First burial. Fossilization/sedimentation. Possible uplift event, does not matter but these are most exposed. Then EROSION through aeolian and fluvial processes. The erosion exposed fossils and bam, you get skeletons of creatures that can inspire myths. Here is a question, if dinosaurs were wiped out by flood, how were they excluded? size? elephants are larger than some species. Please tell me why they were excluded
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough Myths is one thing. But like I said, reports of experiences and livestock(?), that's another thing. The idea evolution happened MAKES it mythological. Nothing else.
Noah did bring dino's on the ark (young ones). They got extinct because of man invading their habitat, hunting, etc., but they never got big anymore because of the dramatic change in climate and atmosphere. The earth was immensely different before the Flood. watch?v=rxf40yO7I60
EdjeBos 6 months ago
@EdjeBos Okay I watched the video, all I have to say is, I DONT HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO FUCKING SHOW HOW IT IS TOTALLY WRONG. Inbox me and I can tell you why. Firstly evolution and geology are not the same thing! ffs. Next the flood is one thing, but noahs arc is completely different. watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w&playnext=1&list=PLB11AC24C5B38EAF9 it will teach you some things, and its funny :) The ark has to be the hardest thing to support, simply because of everything that would go wrong with it.
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@EdjeBos First and foremost, inbreeding depression from only two of each animals. How about the carnivores, insectivores? every time they eat they wipe out a species. Next, what about once they land. no plant life, they would all just die. How did he deal with polar animals? all the fish would be dead too if hydroplate hypothesis is what you want. What about the parasitic organisms? Honestly, I could spend a full day saying reasons why it never happened! inbox me please!
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@EdjeBos Also, stop getting your facts from wiki. I followed links through the wikipedia page for the glen canyon 1983 flood and what do you know it let me to a creationist website? wow, why not say a glen canyon website explaining their history... hmmmm something funky and its not the old bananas in ray comforts closet.
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough Wiki?? What wiki-link did I give? I gave a link to a vid, nothing more. And you did not adress anything from my comment. Let's stick to the subject please.
EdjeBos 6 months ago
@EdjeBos Alright i want to talk about the grand canyon. I am not a geologist, im a biochemist. However I do know enough basic geology to show why the cavitation flood hypothesis is incorrect. First, flood paths and erosion paths are very different. for one, erosion is slow, so the water will always take the path of least resistance. This is why you get meandering channels, which the grand canyon is. That is the snaking path of the where the water erodes the rock. You can see this is currently.
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
Respond to this video... Okay i am just going to inbox you 500 characters is not enough for this.
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough ugh okay lets get the assertions first- hydroplate theory? entailing the water below the surface. the water bukkake of the earth, all sedimentation, all fossils, coal and oil, mid-atlantic ridge, and of course the formation of the grand canyon? Any other ones i will deal with them too, this is gonna take a while.
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
You obviously miss the point Hermunkle. Scientists have unearthed several intact fossils. Some of which still had skin on them. We can tell alot about how the dinosaur looked through modern technology. That shouldn't supprise us; However, how did these 1000 year old cultures know what the dino's looked like? Either they were perfect guessers, or they saw them first hand. Think about it.
apman505 6 months ago
@apman505 Id still have to agree with many others just because you can draw something dosent make it real but if I take a step further as I am asked I am much closer to this being poissible proof that man and dinosaur co-existed and this may in fact disprove evolution my argument isnt wholey with creationism I would go as far as saying that both theorys have serious holes for me to accept either one of them. I just think the man dinosaur conection is not the one thats going to convice me of God
Hermunkle 6 months ago
@apman505 Okay you are incorrect. No skin of dinosaurs has ever been recovered. What has been recovered though are good preservations that still maintain certain key proteins associated with skin. One of which is collagen. This is similar to red blood cells in trex bone argument, it was red blood cells but protein remnants of them. Here is one, why is it we are able to sometimes find cells and tissues of animals that lived 10000 years ago, while we cant seem to find any from dinosaurs?
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough I tried to link several articals about the dino-skin find. there are many out there, but I cannot link them here. Google search dinosaur skin found and you'll get a bunch. Tne national Geographic is pretty good.
apman505 6 months ago
@apman505 ugh.... national geographic is not a good source... magazines are generally not good sources... either are creationist websites. It is always best to go to the source, the original papers....
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@apman505 Mineralized soft-tissue structure and chemistry in a mummified hadrosaur from the Hell Creek Formation, North Dakota (USA) is one of the original articles on one of the best mummified remains dinosaurs, the north dakota hadrosaur. I know it may be a little difficult to understand but skin is not actually present. The majority of the material as been mineralized. It was done so when that the minerals maintained cell boundaries and the microstructure of the skin, but not the skin itself
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough OK, you are nit picking now! The whole point to my original post is, scientist today have a pretty good idea of what certain Dinosaurs looked like. If you believe that is wrong, take it up with the science community. I stand by my original comments.
apman505 6 months ago
@apman505 I don't know. The original claim was scientists found dinosaurs with soft tissues and the only way 10000 year old civilizations would know what they looked like it through actually seeing them. This is not correct. As scientists have begun to understand is some dinosaurs developed feathers which don't come up in ancient pottery. It isn't difficult to understand what something looked like through their fossils.
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@apman505 The main point is we know the timescale of modern homosapiens, roughly 500000 years. Even fewer for being the only homo species (homo neandtholus). We know when dinosaurs became extinct through the geological record and radiometric dating. Both methods support the other. We never find dinosaurs past certain points (okay birds are dinosaurs i know) but I mean the atypical dinosaurs including pterosaurs.
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@apman505 Scientists are now being able to estimate the colour of dinosaurs due to pigments found in bird feathers and pigment remnants. We know what it takes to fossilize bone, we know timescales. Upon that if dinosaurs lived 10000 years ago we would find non-fossilized bones far more commonly instead of 95% and up being fossilized. Please just show ONE example of dinosaurs dating to 10000 years ago. Pottery is one thing, but man can picture many things in their minds. (Alien cave drawings)?
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough search youtube for "A MUST SEE - The History of Dinosaurs". It is a pretty fair Documentry, and explains some of the problems with the Dinosaur finds.
apman505 6 months ago
@apman505 Okay again, documentaries are not a good source. There are documentaries on everything from creationism, to Holocaust denial, to ancient aliens, to whatever someone can imagine. I never trust documentaries after what I learned about editing tricks and how someone can say something completely different from what the original meaning was. Always look at the original papers or gtfo
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough I did not say Documentaries are good sources. I said this particular Documentary is pretty good. You can watch it and then research the documention and sources sited at the end of the video. I did the research and found them to be very credible. I still may hedge on some things, but it has opened my eyes a bit.(along with other things I have researched).
I have always believed Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but lately I have waivered on that view.
apman505 6 months ago
I must admit one of my least favorite arguments for Creationism is this "If they made drawing of it they must have seen it" I am willing to hear a sound argument for creationism and have heard many that make me wonder but if I go by the above pretense I have to asume that all the hollywood monsters and video games and fantastic creatures drawn up in storybooks must have been running around and sure that might work with an angel or demon maybe even an alien but floating eyes maybe tentacula?
Hermunkle 6 months ago
@Hermunkle For me the most sound argument for creationism is DNA and the complexity of the cell. The build-in code-protection mechanism for DNA is also ín the DNA-code. It's build-in! And it not only hampers evolution, it makes it impossible imo. It protects the species itself. It's purpose ís to prevent evolution. Darwin had no idea of this or of DNA itself. The theory of evolution is outdated.. I invite you to the world of real science. Be a rebel! :)
EdjeBos 6 months ago
@EdjeBos
How are you being a rebel whe you still go along with old world theology, If you reject evolution you might as well deny all the scientific invansments of the 20th centery. If we still went along with creationism, we would not have all the medical advances we have now, anti-biotics, chemotheropy, ect. We would not understand how AIDS works. I just cant go along and reject a sound scientific theory for religious "authority". Science in it's self is anti authoritative!
pbrskater26 6 months ago
@pbrskater26 What YOU believe is a sound scientific theory ís your religion. You give it authority. Explain to me the relation between evolution and anti-biotics and/or chemo-therapy. How and why things work has nothing to do with how it came to be. Many important scientific discoveries were made by ye creationists.
EdjeBos 6 months ago
Why are there only pictures and carvings then? If they were THAT recent, we would've found tons of bones. Couldn't these people have discovered dinosaur fossils and made pictures? And then by word of mouth, the stories of these creatures reached their way into our stories?
DeathlyDavid 6 months ago
@DeathlyDavid What recent is THAT recent to you? There áre writings and bones found. But keep in mind: they were not called dinosaurs in 'them days'. Also the difference in climate, oxygen-level ánd airpressure before the Flood of Noah allowed them to get much bigger than after. So there are only big ones found as fossils. That's how things went down, so that's what we find.
EdjeBos 6 months ago
@EdjeBos Pff the flood of noah would've killed all marine life on earth, so your argument is fudged.What type of water is in the ocean? Salf-water. What do fish in the ocean live in? A concentration of salt-water. What is rain? Fresh Water. It rained for 40 day/nights. What happens when salt meets fresh water? Dilution. Kills marine life. Also, it disrupts ocean currents. The gulf stream would be non existent if Noah's ark was real. Don't believe me? Try it on your saltwater pet fish
DeathlyDavid 6 months ago
@EdjeBos Also, the ocean waters were said to have traveled at tremendous speed. If this happened for 40 days all around the world, how did the fish eat for 40 days/nights? The (according to bible) oceans of the earth were moving at such speed that a fish couldn't find food. Add that to Freshwater being mixed with salt-water and we've got a dead fish. Then there's the extreme pressure of millions of gallons of extra water. Then there's all the dirt that is flushed from land into the ocean.
DeathlyDavid 6 months ago
@EdjeBos Another thing, if the flood, which occurred 2900 BC. Are you kidding me? Is that how you explain how humans were able to survive with dinosaurs? "They got smaller" Your proof? *Oh Humans were able to survive thats my proof* No that isn't, that is speculation assuming dinosaurs were already alive. How did dinosaurs survive on earth if Noah didn't take any on the ark? Why couldn't the ancients have just found their bones like we did and draw them? They're just as smart.
DeathlyDavid 6 months ago
@DeathlyDavid If you ridicule what I believe, I will not debate you. If you have serious questions, ask them in an appropriate manner please. If not, stick with your own beliefs.
*Oh Humans were able to survive thats my proof* Did I say anything like that? If you think you know all the answers, don't ask questions. If you want serious answers, ask serious questions.
EdjeBos 6 months ago
@EdjeBos Let me ask the question then. How did any marine life survive during the flood when there were extremely turbulent waters, a mixture of diluted salt water as WELL as eroded dirt that mixed into the water. How was an olive tree able to survive when supposedly the ENTIRE earth was covered in water for almost a year.
DeathlyDavid 6 months ago
@DeathlyDavid Your view of the pre-Flood world and that of the happenings during the Flood itself is totally askew. Watch a Hovind-vid on the Flood to gain some insight on what we believe happened. You have to be able to consider other options. If you're convinced you're right on your view, you don't really consider other options. A scientific mind is not afraid of other options. Watch the Hovind-theory on my channel and we'll talk. :)
EdjeBos 6 months ago
@EdjeBos Isn't that the guy who is "against sinning" yet he gets put in jail for tax fraud HAHA. Hypocrite. I already saw the Episode by Thunderf00t "Why people laugh at creationists." He completely smacked down Hovind's argument (Episode 3 & 4 I believe).
DeathlyDavid 6 months ago
@DeathlyDavid Thunderfoot's arguments are all based on circular reasoning and assumed 'facts'. Let me ask you this: if Darwin was found to be a practising pedophile, would you reject his teachings? Does the 'crime' of not paying enough taxes have anything to do with his arguments for the Flood of Noah? If you are unable to set aside your presumptions, you are unable to discuss any arguments.
EdjeBos 6 months ago
@EdjeBos Darwin is a "scientist" only. He doesn't HAVE to be "morally" correct and has never claimed to be so. Religious people on the other hand call guidance from a book that has the 10 commandments that they are "supposed" to follow. Since this guy is a religious educator, he's supposed to set an example for others, no? Anyway, where did I say that his crime invalidated his argument? You are assuming. Assumed facts? Scientific LAWS is the word you're looking for.
DeathlyDavid 6 months ago
@DeathlyDavid So, a theologian is a scientist? That's what Darwin's educational background was, as you probably know.. Why did you bring up him being jailed for taxfraud when all I did was recommend you watch a certain vid of his? Not-religious people don't need to set an example? But I can agree with somebodies scientific arguments without agreeing with certain actions/dispositions. Can you? Gonna watch the vid or not?
EdjeBos 6 months ago
You creationist guys actually believe this...LOL
BiiigT 7 months ago
I think most of the articfacts shown are fake.
Tosca3MozartMob 7 months ago
So, following this logic, in the 13th century animals could speak, a lion was king, and a fox called Reynaerde tricked every other animal?
In Egypt, there were lions with human heads? In greece, humans with the body of a horse, flying lions, mermaids, flying serpents with nine heads that regrew immediately when hacked off. In Persia, maneaters with the body of a lion, the head of a man, and the tail of a scorpion?
And the list goes on and on...
Belgianmeth 7 months ago
Good video. Changes my whole idea that Dinosaurs died in the flood of Noah.
shanegibby 7 months ago
And about the ark story: Yes, many cultures around the world have flood myths. That's because the cradle of civilization, the city of Ur, was between two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. When they seasonally flooded, so did the valley where all of civilization then existed. As far as they knew, the entire known world had flooded. This myth kept up until the entire world had been explored, so our myth now is that the flood was worldwide.
DoctorSubmarine 8 months ago
This shows tons of pictures of classical artwork of dragons or dinosaurs. But those cultures had artwork of a lot of other absurd creatures and gods. Did those also exist?
DoctorSubmarine 8 months ago
This is laughably stupid. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.
Let's say that I drew a picture of a fantastical creature. In thousands of years, if that picture was discovered, would that be evidence that I lived with that creature? Because, according to you, why would I draw something if I had never seen it?
DoctorSubmarine 8 months ago
The one and only reason you can not answer this questions is that you CAN NOT answer them, as simple as that. Your claims are absurd. There is no possibility whatsoever that a global flood cold have happened! Evolutionary Theory has proofs while Creationism is exclusively based on religious bias that are arrogantly imposed into people without any proven claim.
ZZzzzzzWhat 8 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat It may have gone over your head, but I answered two. You can find the answer to your third question yourself. Or explain why you are unable to do so.
EdjeBos 8 months ago
@EdjeBos lolwut? you cant answer my questions so therefore you insult. For your information, english is not my native language. And yes, i'm still waiting for those answers..
ZZzzzzzWhat 8 months ago
see @EdjeBos , this is why creationists disable comments. You guys can't backup your claims when someone questions them amd forget that most atheists know the bible even better then you.
ZZzzzzzWhat 8 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat 'creationists disable comments'.. I don't.
Tell me, are you in some way or form unable to do research on the 'questions' you have? Your questions have nothing to do with any claim made by this vid. And thát's what I mean: you are 'waiting' for answers. Go look!! But to help you on your way and to answer your first question, I believe watch?v=zKO-vTwYCo8. So that's two questions answered. Think you can manage the last one on your own?
EdjeBos 8 months ago
@EdjeBos
So 'find the answers for yourself' seems quite convenient. I know my answer, and very much secure with their truth, thats why i'm an atheist who loves science.
If you don't want/can not answer all of them thats with you, someday a creationist will but i truly doubt it.
Either way i'll see that movie for the fun of it.
ZZzzzzzWhat 8 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat Not searching for answers yourself isn't convinient? Like I said, not here for answers. Go watch another Dawkins-vid with him saying life on earth is seeded here by something from space. That's how scientific you atheists are. Laughable..
EdjeBos 8 months ago
@EdjeBos How can you mention Evolution if you don't even know whats a scientific theory.
btw - and without answering by PM -
Tell us:
- How could the continental drift from Pangaea to our actual continent be possible in just 6000y? And how could there be so many ppl on Earth(6.92 billion) in less than 6000y?
- Did the unicord also existed? what about the esfinge? there are statues of it in Greece and Egypt.
- There are Hominidae Skulls (not pictures or cravings!), do you deny their existance?
ZZzzzzzWhat 8 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat Are there fossils of unicorns or esfinges? Search for answers or go back to ZZzzzzz.
EdjeBos 8 months ago
@EdjeBos
Yap like i expected, responses to my questions: NONE.
ZZzzzzzWhat 8 months ago
@ZZzzzzzWhat You're not here for answers bud, or you would have found them already. 'Coz if you can type, you can search. Or did you ask someone to type this for you?
EdjeBos 8 months ago
that sucked lol
117cam 9 months ago
I think this proves that humans have long had very active imaginations, and stumbled across a few fossils along the way. And you're suggesting that Beowulfe is a historical document? ROFL
lormendi 11 months ago
This is 100% rubbish.
lormendi 11 months ago
Yes, and they also believed in trolls and elfes before. LOL.
gulbirk 11 months ago
interesting stuff
ThomasWinkworth 1 year ago
I'm confused and have a question. If the earth is around 6000 years old, is the entire universe 6000 years old? If so, how can we see light from stars that are farther than 6000 lightyears away? If not, what happened at this spot in the universe 6000 years ago that caused the earth to materialize?
gunny2020 1 year ago
@gunny2020 Good questions! I will pm you my answer.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@gunny2020 i heard from somebody that the Bible does not mention the creation of the Universe, just earth and its inhabitants and ofcourse, the sun (light).
attypulpol 9 months ago
You people need to get a grip, If you think man inhabited the earth with dinosaurs.... do you not think there would be a little more historical corroborative evidence. I don't remember reading about any Roman Legion being set upon by velociraptors. St George Killed the Dragon in mythical terms. You may aswell say that medusa had snakes as hair and Perseus rode a Pegasus and that Minotaurs did live in a maze. LOGIC WILL PREVAIL..... you charlatans.
You must come to terms with scientific truth.
MrNarrative 1 year ago
@MrNarrative No, I am sorry, but it is you that needs to adjust your opinion on what we believe happened with the Flood. Once you have a true understanding of the forces at work during that event, you would not have any problem at all with it. This world screems 'FLOOD!!' and 'CREATION!!!'. From the complexity of the tiniest creatures to the interdependence of EVERYTHING. Too bad logic will only prevail with a few. Care to become one of them? I guess not..
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos Ok listen. I believe Youtube brings out the worst in people, and I also do not want to get into an argument with someone who clearly shares a highly different view to me. I envy people with faith. I really do. I just don't have it myself. I only have a beef with new world creationists who are determined to indoctrinate children with lies about the age of the earth and the dogma of burning in hell. It isn't fair, and it spits on the face of science. Do you honestly believe in the flood?
MrNarrative 1 year ago
@MrNarrative Honestly and wholeheartedly. I'm also a critical thinker. I suppose you can't imagine, but I'm very distrustfull when somebody tells me 'this is the truth', no matter what topic. Especially when this truth has a direct influence on my opinion on what 'life' is. And I also believe the earth is around 6000 yrs old. So to you I'm a real nutter I guess. You probably think I haven't given it much thought or was indoctrinated from birth for me to believe this. If you do, really not true.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos Ok, that's your prerogative. So long as you understand that 6000 years ago, was after the start of what we conceive to be the agricultural revolution. But as I said, your belief system. Good Luck with it. I would ask though, purely out of curiosity what has lead you hold this as truth. Religion? research? both?
MrNarrative 1 year ago
@MrNarrative Right on: 'what we conceive'. It's concieved. The whole theory only works in minds of people. Science hás disproved the possibility of evolution, especially abiogenesis. I KNOW it's not evolution, but it's the start of it. If the start appears impossible, one needs to reconsider. But (almost) no one does. Is someone dumb for doubting something with reasons that are based on scientfic research? It ís proven that the chance for a single cell to come about by chance is impossible.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@MrNarrative -cont- But I'm not saying you are calling me stupid. I'm saying that you would not be stupid for believing scientific conclusions. If abiogenesis is impossible, life did not appear by mear natural causes. That much cán be said for sure. Some try to involve aliens in our initial start, but that's just shifting the problem of evolution/abiogenesis to 'their planet', with even much less time for them to 'evolve to spacetravel', if you catch my drift. So what remains?
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos Ok..where from here you ask. Good question. I guess by stating (rather boldly I might add) that "science has disproved the possibility of evolution, especially abiogenesis" you are willing to except scientific research to a point where it corroborates your story. Then abandon it.
MrNarrative 1 year ago
@EdjeBos Cont-You have said that you believe the world to be 6000 years old, and in your previous statement you have used evidence about the unlikeliness of abiogenesis as discovered by scientists whereby they have gathered data by studying rocks of over 3 billion years in age. As it happens, neither abiogenesis nor evolution have been disproved by scientists. I believe religion to be a conjured fantasy from a simpler time, when the earth was flat and when Hades guarded the underworld
MrNarrative 1 year ago
hooray for DRAGONS! and Job 41, too. Third, I wanna be a dragon~slayer! Oh, the fame!
FlyingAxblade 1 year ago
And the inca stones were all proven to have been faked. The people who made them admitted to it after they were caught. It was all a scam to get tourists to spend money.
satanisthetruegod666 1 year ago
by the logic at 1:10 gryphons, hydras, pheonixs, sphinxs, and every other creature ever drawn must have existed because humans drew them.
satanisthetruegod666 1 year ago
This video is convincing. This can debunk evolution.
Tagukon 1 year ago
@Tagukon I admit wholeheartedly this is circumstantial evidence. But of the same kind as the pyramids. The oldest one is by far the best preserved one. That means the earlier builders were better at it. And there are ANCIENT pyramids all over the world. This combined with highly accurate maps of Antarctica, batteries in Baghdad, the Nasca lines wich suggest (balloon?)flight and advanced optical technology, oopart, etc. All these things are real, ancient and only a mystery to evolutionists.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@chuteleach The South American carvings are the only things even half impressive I’ve ever seen on the subject, but even there you can’t really draw anything conclusive from it. Think about it, humans have had a stead brain capacity since they migrated into South America, meaning if they found any fossils at all they could extrapolate anything we could from the same find. Maybe even more so considering the butchering they would have done to their own kills.
GamaScythe 1 year ago
Grendel the dragon? When the hell did that happen, those were two different characters.
GamaScythe 1 year ago
Dinosaurs don't breath fire, IDiots.
And there are dinosaurs today, we call them birds.
gregrutz 1 year ago
this shit is stupid
chinese drew dragons, but that doesnt mean they lived with dragons.
dennisrayso 1 year ago
Damn - this video is exactly right!!
Why would people depict dragons if they had never seen one?
And why would anyone depict leprechauns, unicorns, big foot, sea monsters, ... etc etc etc ...
They wouldn't make it up.. surely?
Thanks.. I now believe in all those things too!
It's so obvious... how could we have missed it?
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 History tells us that there have been kings/emperors, I believe in China, that had dragonfeeders in their entourage.
Lepricons, unicorns, etc. are/were usually depicted in a fantasy-setting. Furthermore, the dino-depictions are more accurate than most schoolbook drawings. Skinsamples with a circular pattern were found, just like the ancient cave-drawings show. So who made what up?
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos " Lepricons, unicorns, etc. are/were usually depicted in a fantasy-setting. "
Unlike the realistic settings of dinosaurs?
Sorry but if you grant it for one, you grant it for all...
No one except you of course, grants it... because it's insane.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 Why do I 'have to' grant it for all? You're the one that 'has to' to keep evolution 'reality'. No one but me? You just keep ignoring half of what I say, close your eyes and drift back into your evolutionary dreamworld. Funny how you guys twist and turn to make history fit your worldview. Like the term 'oopart' for the Baghdad batteries found. Only to evo's are these things puzzling. And still you just don't see it's you who believes in fairytales..
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos Wow... the evos are the one's living in a self concocted fairytale they twisted out of actual historical events? You can literally take ANY argument and build a case for it, and you anti-evolutionists are the worst at it. Not to mention half of what you showed doesn’t even look like a dinosaur. “Oh, a lion with a really long neck, it must be a dinosaur rather than a symbolic representation of power.”
GamaScythe 1 year ago
@EdjeBos I suppose the "dragons" kept in China and elsewhere couldn't have been alligators, crocodiles, or Komodo Dragons right? Salt water crocodiles can grow up to 30' long, that would make for a fairly convincing dragon. Merely depicting something isn't indicative of first-hand experience. There are works of art online right now depicting dragons, unicorns, trolls, the phoenix, etc. in real life settings. Have you read Harry Potter? Are wizards real?Do these depictions indicate reality?
ReverendWyrm 1 year ago
Nice music, but that's about as far as I can go as far as compliments are concerned. I would recommend that the creator of this video does a basic inquiry into how scientists use sedimentary layers to date fossils. If dinosaurs co-existed with humans, we would find them in the same sedimentary layers as fossilized humans. Alas, we do not. The last dinosaurs roamed the Earth 65+ million years ago. Mammals have dominated the fossil record since then.
UniverseExpanding 1 year ago
@UniverseExpanding A basic ininquiry? Why don't you try to find skeptic evolution-scientists. I recommend an in-depth study. Anyone can find scientists who agree with it. But do they all? And if not, why not? Expand your Universe. Peace.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
It's all imagination.
flamifer 1 year ago
people riding dino.s pretty cool. Humans over hunted them, so they no longer exist.
TriggerHappy923 1 year ago
@TriggerHappy923 I believe some sea-dwelling dinosaurs still exist. There is some footage of them and way too many eyewhitesses. Like Nessie? Bet there's more then one. Some still exist in area's as far as possible from humans. There are also reports from swamplands in Afrika about small bronto-like dino's. Evolutionists say they died 'millions of years ago' and man has never seen living dinosaurs. I think they are wrong on both accounts.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
There were no sea-dwelling dinosaurs. All dinosaurs were terrestrial. You're thinking of aquatic reptiles, like plesiosaurs. And they did die out 65 million years ago along with all large bodied animals. No bones of modern mammal of any kind have ever been found along side dinosaur fossils. If you care about the scientific facts, that is.
dudev 1 year ago
people riding dino.s pretty cool. Humans over hunted them, so they no longer exist.
TriggerHappy923 1 year ago
The other video blocked me. Not very open minded. Since the beginning is so full of errors, it really doesn't matter what follows. The premise is silly. And I suppose you're going to argue that 'big evil science' is keeping their work suppressed. If it had any merit it'd be in a scientific journal and not on YouTube. Larry wasn't lecturing a group of scientists, he was talking to naive fools like you.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev Again you suppose. Ask. Don't suppose. And I'm a naive fool. Alright, keep on assuming. I have lots of debates with evolutionists, but none of them are as closed minded as you are. You just are unable to have a conversation. And I háve tried. Again, I wish you the best. But just assume I'm lying.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
No human artifacts or human fossils have ever been found in the same sedimentary layers as dinosaur fossils. No bears, no cats, no dogs, no horses, no rabbits, no sheep, no pigs have ever been found in the same layers with dinosaurs. Do you see a pattern?
And imaginary creatures appear in a lot of ancient art. The minotaur isn't real. The unicorns isn't real. Pegasus isn't real.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev Wrong. Once they've found a human skull in a layer onder a dino. And you believe in the geological column-fallacy. There are layers observed all around the globe. But nowhere in the way the geological column is displayed. Different places show different layers, but nowhere together like that. It's man-made. Fictive. Did you know they can't date a rock unless they know what strata it is found in? That's circular reasoning. Not science.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
Please name this skull. Who's the scientists who found it? Where was it found? Where is it now? Or are you going to tell me that all scientists are liars? Are you a conspiracy nut?
They date columns using periodic layers that have very specific radiocative 'fingerprints' and mineral contents. For example, the K-T clay layer is virtually the same chemically over the entire Earth. It is unique, so one can use it to date the layers above and below.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev I will look into it. But only if you can have this discussion in a civil, respectfull manner. To call me a conspiracy 'nut' tells me you jump to conclusions with very little info. Bad habit. The simularities between the layers can indeed proove they are the same age. What that age is, can not be proven by either carbon- or radiometric dating. If it could, they would not NEED TO KNOW the layer it was found in.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
I didn't call you a conspiracy nut. I asked if you were one. And there's an enormous range of characteristics between the layers. Some are igneous, some are sedimentary. Some are marine, some are terrestrial. Some contain radioactive elements, others don't. Some are narrow, others are thick. Some are filled with one kind of tiny marine creatures, others are filled with another kind.
dudev 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
I gave the example of the K-T layer which is when the dinosaurs (and much of life) went extinct. Above that layer, oceanic fossils disappear for a long period. This layer is found worldwide, always with the same characteristics. The radioactive elements in the K-T have the same 'fingerprint' as meteorites. The K-T is unique -- it's a black clay layer, about 1 inch thick, with very specific minerals, and radio isotopes. Look it up if you don't believe me.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev Sorry for the delay. I have looked it up. The fingerprint is because of iridium. That is also found in our earth's core. The supposedly impact crater could also have been enormous eruptions from the earth's core. The even global spread of iridium is more consistent with that possibility. And that scenario is also in line with a global flood. There are more then 250 ancient flood accounts worldwide, with striking simularities. Too much to ignore, imo. Ever considered that possibility?
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
I'm well read on this particular subject of the K-T meteor. First, the level of Iridium in the K-T is too large to have been deposited by eruptions. The layer is worldwide and about an inch thick. Also, eruptions deposit many other types of minerals which are not found at all in the K-T layer. Yet the proportions of minerals and isotopes match exactly those of meteorites. And the earth is littered with crater holes like the moon, except on earth they are weathered.
dudev 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
Also, what's called fractured quartz is found in the K-T layer. These tiny quartz minerals are only made under enormous pressure --like during an impact. They are always found at nuclear blast sites --after underground nuclear testing. The fractured quartz is never found at sites of volcanic eruptions.
The K-T crater has also been identified in Mexico.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev I wasn't talking about normal vulcanic eruptions. They come from close to the surface and don't leave creaters. And many of the craters found on other planets are also formed by eruptions from within. If these quartz-particles were made by the impact, they would be found at the impact, under the meteorite. It is not very likely they would have been dispersed evenly around the globe. So I dare to presume that they were formed in the earths core. The pressure would be sufficient.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
The quartz particles are localized around meteor impact sites, not spread worldwide. The Chicxulub crater in Mexico is about 110 miles in diameter. The particles are only formed with a SUDDEN pressure cause by a shock wave. No eruption could ever do it. And I pointed out that the K-T layer does NOT contain the minerals found in eruption material. The proportion and content only match meteorites.
dudev 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
If you Google the news from early March you'll find that a international panel of scientists have reached a consensus that a meteorite (asteroid) caused the Cretaceous extinction. As reported by the BBC and other news outlets:
"They reached the consensus after conducting the most wide-ranging analysis yet of the evidence. Writing in Science journal, they rule out alternative theories such as large-scale volcanism."
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev ...still on this one.. I see a lot. Can't remember what vid it was. But I will get back to you about this.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
Videos can help, but I find books to be more accurate and less bias. They're often written by the scientists who did the original work. And they are edited for accuracy by other scientists. Just saying.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev Sorry that it took so long. But I found it. Skull # KNM-ER 1470 found by Richard Leakey in 1972. It wasn´t found under dino-fossils, I remembered that wrong, but it was found under a vulcanic ash-layer previously dated about 200 myo. Then they found the skull, dated again because of that and all of a sudden it´s .5 to 2.6 myo. Big difference. Makes the dating seem VERY unreliable, imo. They make the numbers fit the theory.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
Sorry, but you got the facts all wrong there. The non-human hominid skull (KNM-ER 1470) was NOT found by Richard Leakey, but by his associate Bernard Ngeneo. It was first dated at 3 million years, NOT 200 myo. But with more testing the date was revised at 1.9 myo, which is the date currently accepted as reliable. The 1.9 myo date also puts it inline with other finds. I don't know where you got that 200 number. because no anthropologist ever made that claim.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev The find is attributed to him also. Look it up. What I said was that the layer it was found under was first dated 250 myo. And after the skull was found it was dated between 0.5 and 2.6 myo. Not the skull. Look at the info from both sides.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
The 1973 paper in the journal Nature by R. Leakey states the skull was found in sediment between two volcanic layers. The bottom layer is dated at 3.4 myo. So the top layer must be younger, logically. The reason the top layer was initially mis-dated is because it's mixed in with redeposited material. It's in a hilly lake and river region where erosion sometimes redeposits older sediment onto younger. Subsequent tests proved it's 1.9 myo. An example why they measure more than once.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev It wás tested more then once. So what ever the reasons might be for the 'misinterpretation' of the first date, they wouldn't have redated it without the skull. And when they did they 'appeared to be off' by a couple of hundred million years. If you keep on believing science can not be wrong on this, you are gonna look stupid one day.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
They don't date fossils directly, they date the sediment layers. The KNM 1470 skull sat in between. The bottom layer is 3.4 myo. The top layer, like I said, is a mixture of material -- some dated at 200 myo, and some dated at 1.9 myo. The 200 myo material was washed into the 1.9 myo material --it's called erosion. Water goes downhill. And what a coincidence (sarcasm) that the bottom layer (3.4 myo) lines up with the top layer's younger date of 1.9 myo.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev If they would not have found the skull, they would not have dated the layers again. They re-dated them. Afterwards. It's all circular reasoning. You assume that they dated them appropriately, but they do not. Your trust in 'science' is more blind then my trust in the Bible. I came to trust it. By doing research with an open mind. Don't rush to conclusions or generalize. You don't know anything about me.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
Radiometric dating is done by unbiased labs. And you don't even understand the science well enough to criticize it. You don't like answers it gives so you attack it. If the shroud of Turin had been dated to the 1st century instead of the 13th, Christians would have happily accepted the radiometric dating. Instead they attack the answer. Like I said originally, no dinosaurs have ever been found with human remains. You can't explain that with creationism.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev Attack? You're the one feeling attacked. I just don't agree and say so. I believe the shroud to be fake anyway, like I know the RC church to be fake. But that's another story. Dino's lived in the same time with man, not with them. Like hurdes of elephants don't mix with people, so with a flood, they would not have been buried together. People went to higher ground, swam, lived longer, got buried later.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
That's pathetic. Your logic fails. 1) If all dating is unreliable, then you cannot use it to support a young earth, either. 2) If science is unreliable and often wrong that doesn't make your position right by default. There's more than two options. So you need to provide evidence to support your position, which you haven't done.
Also, human fossils are mixed in with all sorts of extinct mammals. Weren't dinos in the great flood? So your attempted explanation fails.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev With dating they compare the results with a model. The results are correct, the model is debatable. I don't say my position is right by default. But it is optional. You are the one who thinks he's right by default. All the evidence can be and is explained otherwise. Both ways. I just believe mine makes more sense. I can explain everything by observable, testable natural processes. Like you say you do.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
It makes more sense to believe in a bible story? That's silly. Please explain how people knew the ENTIRE world was flooded? If my city was flooded, how would I know the rest of the world is flooded too? Especially in a time without satellite photos, GPS, or accurate maps.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev If it was, how many people would live to tell? Only those aboard the ark would. Over 250 legends across the world tell such a story. Some call that mythology, others call it history. Ten stories I would consider the first. Over 250? That's a stubborn legend. If they would be all local, they would differ much more then they do.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
" Only those aboard the ark would." ---But how would they know? Unless they traveled the globe, they couldn't possibly know the entire world was flooded.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev Noah landed on a mountain. They were covered at first. And God told Noah he would. The whole idea for building the ark wasn't Noah's idea. But you don't believe in a God, so to you that can not have happened. As I've told you, I've come to learn that the Bible is true for more reasons then the flood. When you study it along the history of the world, it will amaze you.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
Stop avoiding the question. You said the only witnesses were on the Ark? How did they know the entire world was flooded? The couldn't have known. If god told Noah then it's all just an assumption on your part. You're assuming the story is true.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev You're right. Have a nice life.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
Thanks for verifying my hypothesis that every creationist I encounter is a smarmy hypocrite. What you actually mean when you say "Have a nice life" is "Burn in hell for not believing as I do". That's the difference between us -- I don't think you deserve eternal punishment for your beliefs.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev Again, you jump to conclusions, without any reason. I actaully wish you the best and hope you will come to use your head. You have to stop assuming things about me or anything you don't know enough about. Ask if something is the case, then make an informed decision. The reason I end my discussion with you is for that very reason. With regret, my friend.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@dudev So you think I think you deserve eternal punishment? I rest my case about your quick assumptions.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
Your religion demands it. Or haven't you read the bible?
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev How do you figure that?
EdjeBos 1 year ago
If your own brother, your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death... Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God.
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev
Deuteronomy 13. Although Deuteronomy is chock-full of reasons to punish people. But John 14:6 is one of the most quoted passages by Christians --"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Mark 16:16 --"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned."
dudev 1 year ago
@dudev You said I had to think you deserve eternal punishment. I'm not the judge here. Consider this: if God is real, you live because He gave you live. All life comes from Him. If He created everything, He created you. All you do in return for the gift of your life is scoff. He gave you life. He will judge it. And the way to avoid that you mentioned yourself above. And I don't consider myself better then you.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@dudev Written before Christ, for the Jews. And it is specific for them THEN, that 'secretly enticed' others. About people how knew God and still did that. When someone turns from God, he puts his eternal life on the line. So someone responsable can be considered a murderer. So it was a deathpenalty for a murderer with intent. Doesn't apply to you. Always read in context. In fact, keep on reading.
EdjeBos 1 year ago
@EdjeBos
Genesis was written before Jesus, for the Jews. As were the 10 commandments. And the book of Mark is New Testament. The bible is open to wide interpretation as the thousands of Christian sects demonstrate. So your interpretation is no more valid than the next. Most Christians do believe in hell and preach that non-believers will go there.
dudev 1 year ago