This is like saying since some animals can swim and live underwater, God must have given them the ability to swim. It's just a non-argument that proves nothing..
Let me get this straight. You believe that humans were created by a pale-skinned overly sized throne sitting bearded man living in a cloud, who is also a Jewish zombie to whom we must telepathically pledge our allegiance because some rib woman ate an apply in a magic garden that a talking snake told here to eat. Wow. You've won me over.
I'm just spit-balling here, but what about a mixture of creationism and evolution? Maybe "God" started us off and we evolved into what we are today. Thoughts?
Animals that could smell underwater found more food and were able to reproduce more often than animals that couldn't? No way that sounds like natural selection! But wait, nevermind. GOD did it!
@brianpv1 All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
@BereanBeacon1 Let's say you contracted a rare and deadly infection and there are only two medications which could possibly cure it. They completely counteract each other if you take both.
1: Has been developed by a team of epidemiologists and submitted to a wide array of epidemiologists for further testing.
2: Has been developed by a kinesiologist and submitted only to the local circuit court judge for approval.
@BereanBeacon1 Stop commenting on something you know absolutely nothing about. Evolution has not and never will claim that a human evolved from a chicken or from any other currently living organism. If you go back far enough in the phylogenetic tree you will find a common ancestor between humans and chickens, but a human is no more descended from a chicken than you are from your cousin. You and your cousin are different, but both descended from the same grandparents. Your ignorance is astounding
"Scientists plagiarize God" is the most hilariously stupid thing I've seen... well, this week, at least. God doesn't exist. And how exactly how are they trying to hide the fact that these drugs are based on chemicals found in nature? Also, plagiarism involves written or spoken words, not mechanical or chemical inventions.
Also the "this animal is amazing, therefore God made it" fallacy is pretty stupid too.
And what exactly does the text in your description have to do with the video?
All of you do the same.all the time,you erase every comment that doesn´t say what you wanna hear,if a real just god existed I don´t think he would be proud of your bigotry and your mission of dividing humankind and hating other people for their different way of thinking,even if they´re good people.good luck ;)
That´s the prove of the existence of a god?Or is it the prove of your human idea of the existence of a god,because of your human idea that everything has a beginning?Anyway I don´t mind if all of you respect other´s ideas and rights,regards.
I'm always amazed that Christians support the creation account and yet reject and become down right hostile and nasty towards the very commandment that proclaims God (Yahweh) as that Creator. Each week God gave to us the tool to show to the world that we are 'creationists'! And yet so few actually use it.
If the sense receptor is in the nose and the nose is used by the brain to analyze the detected substance then most scientists would describe that as smell. If the tongue or mouth were used to detect and analyze substances it would be called tasting, if the skin or whiskers or such are used we would call that feeling. You young children that have been brainwashed into denying God are always confusing things. Thinking you are wise you have become fools.
Smell isn't a magical effect of being in the air with something mselly nearby. Smell is when particles from the smelled substance become airborn and land on receptors in your nose.
Taste is when the same, Tasting is when particles of a substance make contact with receptors on the tongue.
This experiment proved particles from a substanced passed through a screen and either interacted the test animals's tongues or noses.
Secondly, the "reference" you post is located in a subscription only area.
I find it VERY hard to believe scientists would refer to or consider this underwater sense as "smell" anymore than a piranha or a shark can "smell" blood in the water. Scientifically it's called "sensing", via direct contact. Without immediate blood particles in the immediate water, no fish could detect it.
SMELL, v.t. pret and pp. smelled, smelt. [I have not found this word in any other language.] TO perceive by the nose, or by the olfactory nerves; to have a sensation excited in certain organs of the nose by particular qualities of a body, which are transmitted in fine particles, often form a distance; as, to smell a rose; to smell perfumes.
@pokerslut530 1. To perceive by means of the tongue; to have a certain sensation in consequence of something applied to the tongue, the organ of taste; as, to taste bread; to taste wine; to taste a sweet or an acid.
This is like saying since some animals can swim and live underwater, God must have given them the ability to swim. It's just a non-argument that proves nothing..
x234gm 3 months ago
Let me get this straight. You believe that humans were created by a pale-skinned overly sized throne sitting bearded man living in a cloud, who is also a Jewish zombie to whom we must telepathically pledge our allegiance because some rib woman ate an apply in a magic garden that a talking snake told here to eat. Wow. You've won me over.
Prostheta 4 months ago
@Prostheta here > her. spelling mistake, oops.
Prostheta 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
atheists are the most vile creatures walking the planet.
mrtadreamer 8 months ago
what the fuck...? You creationist make me laugh, especially when you try and say evolution is stupid. Cracks me the fuck up!
TFSMisTheTruth 8 months ago
they dont literally smell contents of water, they create bubbles of air so they simply smell air. you can not smell water.
MajkeTiTvoje 8 months ago
I'm just spit-balling here, but what about a mixture of creationism and evolution? Maybe "God" started us off and we evolved into what we are today. Thoughts?
dinnercow 11 months ago
@dinnercow Carl Sagan, "The only truly intellectual dishonest position out there is the position that tries to wed Genesis with big bang cosmology."
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
@dinnercow i would say everything that involves the words "maybe" and "god" in the same sentence is a form of agnosticism.
MajkeTiTvoje 8 months ago
Animals that could smell underwater found more food and were able to reproduce more often than animals that couldn't? No way that sounds like natural selection! But wait, nevermind. GOD did it!
brianpv1 1 year ago
@brianpv1 All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Let's say you contracted a rare and deadly infection and there are only two medications which could possibly cure it. They completely counteract each other if you take both.
1: Has been developed by a team of epidemiologists and submitted to a wide array of epidemiologists for further testing.
2: Has been developed by a kinesiologist and submitted only to the local circuit court judge for approval.
Which would you take?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Stop commenting on something you know absolutely nothing about. Evolution has not and never will claim that a human evolved from a chicken or from any other currently living organism. If you go back far enough in the phylogenetic tree you will find a common ancestor between humans and chickens, but a human is no more descended from a chicken than you are from your cousin. You and your cousin are different, but both descended from the same grandparents. Your ignorance is astounding
brianpv1 1 year ago
@brianpv1
Thoroughly investigate your hypothesis. THOROUGHLY!
Learningbyhearing 8 months ago
I laughed my ass off.
kaminarigaston 1 year ago 4
so stupid
drhodad 1 year ago 3
"Scientists plagiarize God" is the most hilariously stupid thing I've seen... well, this week, at least. God doesn't exist. And how exactly how are they trying to hide the fact that these drugs are based on chemicals found in nature? Also, plagiarism involves written or spoken words, not mechanical or chemical inventions.
Also the "this animal is amazing, therefore God made it" fallacy is pretty stupid too.
And what exactly does the text in your description have to do with the video?
Heathenfidel 1 year ago 2
jesus licks buttocks
youtubkicksass 1 year ago 2
I didn´t know that information about amelling under water,thanks!
MITHWORLD1 1 year ago
All of you do the same.all the time,you erase every comment that doesn´t say what you wanna hear,if a real just god existed I don´t think he would be proud of your bigotry and your mission of dividing humankind and hating other people for their different way of thinking,even if they´re good people.good luck ;)
MITHWORLD1 1 year ago
Nice video,5/5
MITHWORLD1 1 year ago
That´s the prove of the existence of a god?Or is it the prove of your human idea of the existence of a god,because of your human idea that everything has a beginning?Anyway I don´t mind if all of you respect other´s ideas and rights,regards.
MITHWORLD1 1 year ago
I'm always amazed that Christians support the creation account and yet reject and become down right hostile and nasty towards the very commandment that proclaims God (Yahweh) as that Creator. Each week God gave to us the tool to show to the world that we are 'creationists'! And yet so few actually use it.
olikamay 1 year ago
Thanks for the great video uploads BereanBeacon.
Uaz31 1 year ago
If the sense receptor is in the nose and the nose is used by the brain to analyze the detected substance then most scientists would describe that as smell. If the tongue or mouth were used to detect and analyze substances it would be called tasting, if the skin or whiskers or such are used we would call that feeling. You young children that have been brainwashed into denying God are always confusing things. Thinking you are wise you have become fools.
gaseti 1 year ago
Could you help me find the connection between the information in this video and creationism?
trueleroix 1 year ago
Thank you for the upload.
ChristiansofAsia 1 year ago
Smell isn't a magical effect of being in the air with something mselly nearby. Smell is when particles from the smelled substance become airborn and land on receptors in your nose.
Taste is when the same, Tasting is when particles of a substance make contact with receptors on the tongue.
This experiment proved particles from a substanced passed through a screen and either interacted the test animals's tongues or noses.
GideonWells 1 year ago
lol!
first, it's not "smell", it's "TASTE".
Secondly, the "reference" you post is located in a subscription only area.
I find it VERY hard to believe scientists would refer to or consider this underwater sense as "smell" anymore than a piranha or a shark can "smell" blood in the water. Scientifically it's called "sensing", via direct contact. Without immediate blood particles in the immediate water, no fish could detect it.
ALL senses are MOLECULARLY based. PERIOD.
pokerslut530 1 year ago
@pokerslut530 The whole point of this is that they, in fact, can smell, not only taste
schnor88 1 year ago
-massive face palm-
pokerslut530 1 year ago
pokerslut530 is an agitator.
Ignore her!
sopobiker 1 year ago
@pokerslut530
SMELL, v.t. pret and pp. smelled, smelt. [I have not found this word in any other language.] TO perceive by the nose, or by the olfactory nerves; to have a sensation excited in certain organs of the nose by particular qualities of a body, which are transmitted in fine particles, often form a distance; as, to smell a rose; to smell perfumes.
schnor88 1 year ago
@schnor88 ?????????????????
You prove my point so eloquently, yet present it in an argumentative way. Interesting!
pokerslut530 1 year ago
@pokerslut530 1. To perceive by means of the tongue; to have a certain sensation in consequence of something applied to the tongue, the organ of taste; as, to taste bread; to taste wine; to taste a sweet or an acid.
schnor88 1 year ago