i no that the oldes trees found were dated to the time of the deluge when god fild up the earth of water , also there is no animal that is evoluating !also the sun is losing 1 metres a year,if you calculate form the day that the earth was made ,if you add that to the sun the earth is in the way of the sun !they also found fish dinosaur that still live in africa and des had no change from all this years .sorry for my english ,and by the way i'm christien to nice video !
oldest trees are dated far before that. if you show me an animal, i'll show you how it's evolving. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium accounts for ancient species being alive today (scorpions, spiders, ferns, salamanders, sharks)
humen's changes very little, the size or shape is the most comen change, nothing drastic have chaned over many hundreds of years,sharks and others animal that hase evoled is very small compared to this video,if we come from monkey's we wood look like them and have hardy no changes,not that we dont look like the but to me there is a missine link y we are so differant
Humen's changes very much, actually. People today are on average much taller than humans of recent ancient times (egyptians, assyrians, etc.), and have much larger livers due to our tendency towards consuming alcohol (it's true; look it up). We are almost IDENTICAL to chimps in terms of our genetic makeup. The links, for the most part, are less missing than they are apparent. Perhaps you should invest in a ticket to your local natural history museum?
This entire video is so misleading that it's borderline deception. Your average "man on the street" will not be able to decifer fossilized bone and perform tissue reconstruction, yet John asks "what could you say from these bones?" as if it's common knowledge. That's like me presenting you with a CAT scan and asking you to diagnose a patient. The fact of the matter is, ever since the chimp genome was published in 2005, we don't need bones to prove common decent.
And I think that guy was posing the question just so he could answer it afterward with logic and reasoning. I don't see this as deception. on the other hand, I have seen many reasons to believe that Darwinism is the deceptive theory.
I guarantee you I know more theology than you do, cat. You are totally missing the point here and are rambling on like a clueless idiot. I'll try ONE MORE TIME to explain this to you. When analyzing hominid fossils, we can decifer bone structure and muscle formations. That is ALL WE NEED to know what kind of animal it was.
"Secondly, I'm not the one continuing to claim that I can put a puzzle completely back together when pieces are clearly missing. "
You don't have a phd in paleontology, do you? How about youlet the experts determine what is and is not possible, ok? Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.
This video would only have meaning if the pictures were used as evidence of evolution. Since the drawings are never given as evidence, what is the point?
The drawings are the hypothesis. And so what? Why does this guy never actually make an argument?
If drawings of prehistoric monkeys disproves evolution, then pictures of Jesus disproves Jesus.
You are right that artists' drawings don't prove anything. However, artist's drawings are what people remember. Drawings convey meaning to people, even though the drawings have very little support in real fossil evidence. People who have seen the Time-Life drawings of human progression remember them. They never think about the fact that most of those drawings are based on only a few bone fragments and that the neatly organized progression is actually out of chronological sequence.
I don't see any drawings like that of Jesus in my Bible. But I think God surely had the power to make Jesus with blonde hair and blue eyes if he wanted to.
I always argue BOTH sides of the coin. I also say that no one knows if that ape wasn't covered in feathers. However, unlike most creationists watching this video, I can't come to the conclusion that the drawing is too far off.
Ape bones. Observed apes have lots of hair. So, that ape had hair. All this video says is "Well, you don't know that, so neyh." I really wish this guy would go against all those pictures of Jesus. Not that it would prove anything either.
It is great to argue both sides of the coin. That is how I have learned throughout the years. I think the point is really about the lack of evidence that has been used to draw so many suposed conclusions that charles darwin's theorys are even close to being facts.
In reality, the facts are not any that support the theory that humans decended from apes over billions of years through chance happenings of natural selection (which would have to be perfect selection).
No evidence? You will move the goalpost I bet but ok, lets see. Humans have 1 less chromosome than apes. If evolution is true and a lost chromosome means death then what is the prediction made from evolution?
oops, sorry, I must have been about to give you some evidence and scared you off. You can always tell when a Christian runs off and sticks his nose in a bible.
I see the evidence for evolution and I also see the lack of evidence for it.
I think all creatures have a nature of evolving within a species but there was never any fossils found to suggest that one animal morphed into another.
You could have chosen a more recent artist impression to work from. More fossils have been found since these drawings were made. But the main point is, it's not impossible to reconstruct the phenotype of an animal based on it's fossil.
As I stated before there are many things that cannot be determined from a skeleton alone and when you have limited fossil fragments it is impossible to tell if you are studying a deformed specimen.
Again, would a human not be a human if it had long ears and a long nose? Superficial features, like hair, is not as important and skeletal structure and muscles formations - both of which can be extrapolated from fossilized bones.
lol, and what "claim" do you suppose I am making here? You're the kind of guy these videos are aimed at. People with absolutely no scientific education. You see some video that seems all "logical and reasonable" when in fact it's just a straw man.
You miss the point again, congrats. If you cut my nose, ears, and hair off, I'm still a human. You would not be able to tell from my remains that I had my nose, ears, and hair chopped off. But guess what? You'd still be able to tell I was a human.
General Anatomy would help here. All bones have muscle attachment sites. The structure of muscle tissues can easily be surmised by examining bones. From muscle tissues, it's easy to reconstruct the dermal layers. Then by examining the strata from environmental impact, it's easy to deduce what environment the specimen lived in to determine if it had fur.
What you have stated is true, but it is over stated. You can determine muscle attachments, but things like fur and noses and ears are not muscles and can not be determined in that way. The example used in the video was the proboscus monkey, which has features that would never show up in a way that could be determined from the skeleton.
You make it sound like reconstruction of soft tissues based on skeletons is not a science. Certainly, some soft tissues like noses and ears can vary. But is that really important? Would a human not be a human if they had large ears and a long nose? What is important are not superficial facial features, but bone and muscluar formation.
i no that the oldes trees found were dated to the time of the deluge when god fild up the earth of water , also there is no animal that is evoluating !also the sun is losing 1 metres a year,if you calculate form the day that the earth was made ,if you add that to the sun the earth is in the way of the sun !they also found fish dinosaur that still live in africa and des had no change from all this years .sorry for my english ,and by the way i'm christien to nice video !
ddcivic200hp 4 years ago
oldest trees are dated far before that. if you show me an animal, i'll show you how it's evolving. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium accounts for ancient species being alive today (scorpions, spiders, ferns, salamanders, sharks)
earthglson 4 years ago
humen's changes very little, the size or shape is the most comen change, nothing drastic have chaned over many hundreds of years,sharks and others animal that hase evoled is very small compared to this video,if we come from monkey's we wood look like them and have hardy no changes,not that we dont look like the but to me there is a missine link y we are so differant
ddcivic200hp 4 years ago
Humen's changes very much, actually. People today are on average much taller than humans of recent ancient times (egyptians, assyrians, etc.), and have much larger livers due to our tendency towards consuming alcohol (it's true; look it up). We are almost IDENTICAL to chimps in terms of our genetic makeup. The links, for the most part, are less missing than they are apparent. Perhaps you should invest in a ticket to your local natural history museum?
earthglson 4 years ago
This entire video is so misleading that it's borderline deception. Your average "man on the street" will not be able to decifer fossilized bone and perform tissue reconstruction, yet John asks "what could you say from these bones?" as if it's common knowledge. That's like me presenting you with a CAT scan and asking you to diagnose a patient. The fact of the matter is, ever since the chimp genome was published in 2005, we don't need bones to prove common decent.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
what as chimp genome?
And I think that guy was posing the question just so he could answer it afterward with logic and reasoning. I don't see this as deception. on the other hand, I have seen many reasons to believe that Darwinism is the deceptive theory.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
Do not even comment on evolution if you don't even know what a genome is. Take a biology class, please.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
I only want to know what it is because you are waving it around as conclusive evidence.
And I cheated my way through biology just fine.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
Use google, for crying out loud. I'm not going to debate science with some guy who doesn't even know the basics.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
We all have our talents.
I suppose you can't debate the Holy Spirit without knowing the basics.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
I guarantee you I know more theology than you do, cat. You are totally missing the point here and are rambling on like a clueless idiot. I'll try ONE MORE TIME to explain this to you. When analyzing hominid fossils, we can decifer bone structure and muscle formations. That is ALL WE NEED to know what kind of animal it was.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
Fisrt off, thanks for all the insults. They really break me down and make me feel dumb.
I should just leave my brain on standby because it can't seem to keep up.
Secondly, I'm not the one continuing to claim that I can put a puzzle completely back together when pieces are clearly missing.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
"Secondly, I'm not the one continuing to claim that I can put a puzzle completely back together when pieces are clearly missing. "
You don't have a phd in paleontology, do you? How about youlet the experts determine what is and is not possible, ok? Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
This video would only have meaning if the pictures were used as evidence of evolution. Since the drawings are never given as evidence, what is the point?
The drawings are the hypothesis. And so what? Why does this guy never actually make an argument?
If drawings of prehistoric monkeys disproves evolution, then pictures of Jesus disproves Jesus.
DayfallKat 4 years ago
You are right that artists' drawings don't prove anything. However, artist's drawings are what people remember. Drawings convey meaning to people, even though the drawings have very little support in real fossil evidence. People who have seen the Time-Life drawings of human progression remember them. They never think about the fact that most of those drawings are based on only a few bone fragments and that the neatly organized progression is actually out of chronological sequence.
PowerVine 4 years ago
What is out of sequence?
DayfallKat 4 years ago
The drawings are posted everywhere and instilled in our minds like a commercial on TV telling you to buy something.
This dude is just pointing out the obvious most of the time, and he is dead on in my opinion.
Evidence shows that Drawings of monkey-men are just art.
Jesus is life.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
Oh, and the drawings of the blonde haired, blue eyes Jesus are 100% exact, right? Get out of here.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
I don't see any drawings like that of Jesus in my Bible. But I think God surely had the power to make Jesus with blonde hair and blue eyes if he wanted to.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
I didn't see any drawings of apes in "Origin of the Species" either.
"Here's a drawing of what really happened"
or
"Heres a book of what really happened."
or
"Here are the bones (DNA, radiometric dating, etc..) of what really happened."
PowerVine pointing out that drawings prove nothing helps my position when I say the Bible proves nothing. PowerVine argues against a strawman.
DayfallKat 4 years ago
Powervine also says that the image many people have of God is just as wrong as those ampe-men drawings.
If you want to look at what is being said objectively, then do so.
But if your purpose is just to argue the other side of the coin, then carry on.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
I am arguing what is posted in the video. Carry on staying on topic? Uh, OK.
And I wouldn't argue who has the right view of God since I think think such a thing exists. People can argue all they want over who has the right God.
If you would only look at what is being DONE objectively. The man in the video is arguing against an artists rendition.
DayfallKat 4 years ago
I always argue BOTH sides of the coin. I also say that no one knows if that ape wasn't covered in feathers. However, unlike most creationists watching this video, I can't come to the conclusion that the drawing is too far off.
Ape bones. Observed apes have lots of hair. So, that ape had hair. All this video says is "Well, you don't know that, so neyh." I really wish this guy would go against all those pictures of Jesus. Not that it would prove anything either.
DayfallKat 4 years ago
It is great to argue both sides of the coin. That is how I have learned throughout the years. I think the point is really about the lack of evidence that has been used to draw so many suposed conclusions that charles darwin's theorys are even close to being facts.
In reality, the facts are not any that support the theory that humans decended from apes over billions of years through chance happenings of natural selection (which would have to be perfect selection).
ollonelycat 4 years ago
I doubt you have looked at evolution seriously.
No evidence? You will move the goalpost I bet but ok, lets see. Humans have 1 less chromosome than apes. If evolution is true and a lost chromosome means death then what is the prediction made from evolution?
DayfallKat 4 years ago
I don't understand your question.
I just watched "Little Buddha" and it sucked.
Now I crave a dosage of truth... So I am gonna' bring a nice cold beer and a Bible to read under the sprinkle of a hot shower.
Catch you later.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
oops, sorry, I must have been about to give you some evidence and scared you off. You can always tell when a Christian runs off and sticks his nose in a bible.
You didn't move the goalpost. You took it down!
DayfallKat 4 years ago
lol.
I said i didn't understand your question.
I am not a Christian like you think.
I don't go to church.
I rarely pray.
I am far from even reading the whole Bible.
And I sure as hell ain't running from you.
I can't answer all your questions.
I can only tell you what I feel.
Sometimes I come off too strong about my beliefs, but that is because I have passion for it.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
On the subject of evolution, you might want to do more thinking than feeling.
DayfallKat 4 years ago
I see the evidence for evolution and I also see the lack of evidence for it.
I think all creatures have a nature of evolving within a species but there was never any fossils found to suggest that one animal morphed into another.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
That is why I mentioned the DNA. It is not only about fossils. The structure of fossils are a small part.
Even so there are plenty of cases of fossils that show gradual development of humans and of such things as sexually-reproducing carnivorous plankton.
What evidence do you think the fossil record should have? I am suspecting you will never be satisfied no matter what is found.
DayfallKat 4 years ago
The evidence we have is the same just like in a court case.
Either side can use the same evidence to argue whatever they want.
That's what a good lawyer does.
Even if one can make a prettier arguement with the facts, the justice system does not always find the truth.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
You could have chosen a more recent artist impression to work from. More fossils have been found since these drawings were made. But the main point is, it's not impossible to reconstruct the phenotype of an animal based on it's fossil.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
As I stated before there are many things that cannot be determined from a skeleton alone and when you have limited fossil fragments it is impossible to tell if you are studying a deformed specimen.
PowerVine 4 years ago
Again, would a human not be a human if it had long ears and a long nose? Superficial features, like hair, is not as important and skeletal structure and muscles formations - both of which can be extrapolated from fossilized bones.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
When you get to the point of throwing out the evidence, or lack thereof to support your claim, you might just want to call it quits.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
lol, and what "claim" do you suppose I am making here? You're the kind of guy these videos are aimed at. People with absolutely no scientific education. You see some video that seems all "logical and reasonable" when in fact it's just a straw man.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
Well then please tell me what this guy has to profit from brainwashing me?
ollonelycat 4 years ago
"Well then please tell me what this guy has to profit from brainwashing me?"
You don't think this guy is selling his videos? Are you really that naive?
UltraSWG 4 years ago
I don't know if he is selling his videos or not, but I know he has a bunch of them on youtube for free.
I'm a musician and I make music because I love it.
Does that mean if I sell a CD, I am a fraud of some sort?
ollonelycat 4 years ago
Well if your nose and ears are not that important, I dare you to cut them off along with your hair.
ollonelycat 4 years ago
You miss the point again, congrats. If you cut my nose, ears, and hair off, I'm still a human. You would not be able to tell from my remains that I had my nose, ears, and hair chopped off. But guess what? You'd still be able to tell I was a human.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
You like to insult other people and play your little word games, but points fly right past you as well.
You turned to saying that noses and ears are not important just to support your thoughts. How retarded is that?
ollonelycat 4 years ago
General Anatomy would help here. All bones have muscle attachment sites. The structure of muscle tissues can easily be surmised by examining bones. From muscle tissues, it's easy to reconstruct the dermal layers. Then by examining the strata from environmental impact, it's easy to deduce what environment the specimen lived in to determine if it had fur.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
What you have stated is true, but it is over stated. You can determine muscle attachments, but things like fur and noses and ears are not muscles and can not be determined in that way. The example used in the video was the proboscus monkey, which has features that would never show up in a way that could be determined from the skeleton.
PowerVine 4 years ago
You make it sound like reconstruction of soft tissues based on skeletons is not a science. Certainly, some soft tissues like noses and ears can vary. But is that really important? Would a human not be a human if they had large ears and a long nose? What is important are not superficial facial features, but bone and muscluar formation.
UltraSWG 4 years ago