You and the rest of your ignoramous cronies still haven't answered what creationist have pointed out so eloquently, you have not found any "in-between" forms. Obviously, evolution is "still" a "plastic" theory...it is inherently forced to "change" all the time...you got noth'n but disparaging remarks against better science.
Where in nature is your alleged "geologic column"...hum? You dunce, all you got is a art-work, it's another "fabricated" joke that conveniently fits your pseudo-science.
@BlindingInanity "You and the rest of your ignoramous cronies still haven't answered what creationist have pointed out so eloquently, you have not found any "in-between" forms."
That’s a lie. There have been many transitional forms discovered and documented. The only way creationists get a way with claiming any different is by ignoring them or redefining what a transitional form is supposed to be (Kirk Cameron's crocoduck being a perfect example).
@BlindingInanity "Obviously, evolution is "still" a "plastic" theory...it is inherently forced to "change" all the time..."
This is one of the strengths of any scientific theory. It can be changed or even thrown out if new evidence is presented. Compare that to creationists who continue to believe even after their materials are debunked repeatedly.
"you got noth'n but disparaging remarks against better science."
That's a perfect description of the creationist position.
@BlindingInanity "You dunce, all you got is a art-work, it's another "fabricated" joke that conveniently fits your pseudo-science."
The only one speaking pseudo-science here right now is you. You don't get to come onto my channel and lie. Please see my channel rules before commenting again, pay close attention to those requiring you to check your own claims, as your statements show you failed to do.
@BlindingInanity "Whether you like it or not, you are not, and I repeat, you are not the final authority."
I never said I was. Stop putting words into my mouth.
"And one last thing...lose my email address! I don't want to dirty my email account."
I don't have your email address. Youtube sends out emails when replies are given to comments. It seems like you're making an awful lot of unsupported assumptions here.
@BlindingInanity Anywho… if you want to comment here again watch my video about my channel rules conveniently referenced at the start of this video, check to make sure your claims are accurate, and then try again.
Well theres one thing that makes me think, how is it that you think that eveolution is a scintific fact? when every scientist say is a THEORY there for not a fact, and not only that but its a THEORY based on another THEORY, which is the BIG BANG THEORY, according to the scientific chart you post in this video, you have to test and prove conclusively your claims or your back to the drawing board, can or has some one duplicated or prove conclusively the BIG BANG? or EVOLUTION? hint: NO
@Almazyde "how is it that you think that eveolution is a scintific fact? when every scientist say is a THEORY there for not a fact",
In science a theory is a tested explanation of a large number of observed facts that is so good it can be used to make accurate predictions. This "theory not fact" nonsense has been debunked for a long time and you are either willfully ignoranant or trolling.
@Almazyde "… and not only that but its a THEORY based on another THEORY, which is the BIG BANG THEORY… ",
Umm… no. Big bang addresses the development of the universe. Evolution relates only to biology and the diversity of life after it got rolling. They have nothing to do with each other. BTW… big bang made testable predictions that later turned out to be true. talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang(dot)html
@Almazyde "according to the scientific chart you post in this video, you have to test and prove conclusively your claims or your back to the drawing board"
Again, no. No scientific theory is ever proven conclusively. 99% certainty is just fine, and allows for the possibility of future observations requiring the theory be altered or thrown out entirely.
@Almazyde "can or has some one duplicated or prove conclusively the BIG BANG?"
We don't have to duplicate it to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that it happened. If I get home and my chair is ripped up and my dog is covered in fabric do I need to duplicate my dog ripping apart my chair to be sure that’s what happened? No. "or EVOLUTION? hint: NO"
Actually in this case, YES. Evolution has been observed both in the lab and in nature.
@Almazyde Try researching your claim in advance, as is required in my channel rules referenced at the start of the video, if you want to comment here again.
Evolution defies the laws of thermo dynamics, something its creator would not have known about when he invented his theory. Nothing in this universe will advance by its own means, but rather degenerate instead.
@shawneegeek "Evolution defies the laws of thermo dynamics, something its creator would not have known about when he invented his theory. Nothing in this universe will advance by its own means, but rather degenerate instead."
… "Degenerate instead", inside of a closed system. Earth, incase you hadn't noticed the big glowing day ball in the sky is not a closed system. The "Evolution defies the laws of thermo dynamics" bit has been known to be false for a long time.
@shawneegeek Hello again. Your newest comments were removed as they violated my channel rules for not double checking your own claims. The only bias shown in any of the links I provided was towards the facts. It is a fact that evolution has been observed. It is a fact that evolution has been used to make predictions that were later confirmed. It is a fact that those who protest the theory of evolution ussually do not show any understanding of it or what a theory actually is. (continued)
@shawneegeek As you do not wish to research your claims, including attempting to understand that in science a theory is a tested explanation of observed facts, you will not be commenting here again. Goodbye.
Check the alloy of the hammer, also if the footprints were hoaxed, then why is there impressions in the stone under the points of contact with the most weight, and why were scientist able to find that both footprints continued under the layers still covered by stone? These were both documented on camera. Next explain the fine tuning of the cosmological constant and why its so presice if the universe is just a random occourance. Where is your missing link?
Check the links provided, as you were required to do by my channel rules before commenting anyway.
"also if the footprints were hoaxed, then why is there impressions in the stone under the points of contact with the most weight, and why were scientist able to find that both footprints continued under the layers still covered by stone? These were both documented on camera."
Research references addressing this claim have been provided.
You have a good point here and I hope you can keep the debate going and make others look and research for the facts be it for or against your work. I think that such thought makes us as a species stronger and proves that we can better ourselves. science will look at things through critical eyes and for truth. Creationist will always filter their findings based on whether it supports their position or not. In any event these types of post make you think and research keep them coming. Kudos to ya
There is no scientific approach that does not begin with a theory. It is impossible to prove the geologic column because it based on unscientific circular logic. Moreover there is no agreement regarding how the cosmos and specifically our solar system was formed that meets the requirements of basic physics. Funny you don't happen to mention that.
@mblondino "There is no scientific approach that does not begin with a theory." Begin with a theory? You have just shown you have no idea how science works. The rest of your statement is nonsensical and easily falsifiable. Like it says at the start of this video, I suggest you see my channel rules about checking up on your own claims before commenting.
Why did you cut my other comment? Is it that you cannot dispute what I said? Channel Rules? what a cop-out. Just say you will not allow positions that you can't defeat. of coarse I don't expect you to allow this to post either. So I accept your surrender.
@ToxicPaintsworks "Why did you cut my other comment?" and "Channel Rules? what a cop-out." Rule #1 is to research your own claims ahead of time to make sure they are accurate. This comment from you is as good an indicator as any that you do not care whether such is the case. Therefor, there is no point in having any further discussion with you. I have not surrendered, but by refusing twice to check your claims for accuracy you have given yours. And I accept.
Is a tree trunk passing through millions of years of strata layers not out of place. Don't just say its been debunked as you do to everything else. prove it.
@ToxicPaintsworks If you read the start of the video you will notice that I reference my channel rules. A requirement of those rules is to check your own claims as you have failed to do. It is not my job to spoon feed the same information over and over. If you care whether or not the statements you make are accurate you will have no problem referencing those rules and following up on the polystrate fossils claim yourself. If you do not care, you will not be commenting here again. Your call.
i never understood how out of place fossals such as the would debunk evolution. it seems to me that it would be proof of time traval seeing ass its all human related. its note like there is an elephent bone with t rex bight marks. if its human its time traval end of story
@lblmer The idea that evolution is "easily provable false and will soon be discarded" is one of the longest running falsehoods in creationism. Evolution is as well established a theory (which in this case does not mean guess) as is gravity. People who claim otherwise typically show absolutely no understanding of what evolution is or what evolutionary theory actually states. watch?v=tCU3bCQ34x8
id concede all your points. never gave one of them a thought. but, a little spiteful are we?? a creationist insult you? your videos I so loaded with condescension its stunning.
For your own benefit, you should consider not quoting or referencing Kent Hovind. He is a convicted fraudster with a falsified education. Citing him makes it very easy for people that choose to, to discount your research.
Never addressed the blood cells, vessels & still elastic skin & flesh of the supposed 65 MYO T-Rex Dinosaur/Dragon, or the supposed billions of YO "extinct" Coelacanth fish still alive today, and etc., etc., Wonder why? Take a crap then fall back into it.
@sparky6025 The supposed soft trex tissue has long been debunked and it's well known that creationists misrepresented the actual findings. Desertphile has a great summary of the issue. watch?v=B-6a9wHnvFA
The coelacanth argument also collapses easily once a little bit of research is done. watch?v=rMa9icQlP-o
Consult my channel rules before you make more baseless comments here.
@sparky6025 The cells & flesh wasn't elastic until chemically processed. Turns out a process of polymerization occurs in nearly half of all fossils in which some material is protected from decaying prior to mineral embedding.
So you can throw away that "evidence," now.
We have known about polymerization for a long time, just didn't know it could work for so long in fossils.
A modern artist uses a similar technique to preserve humans in poses for art exhibitions - look it up! Plastic humans!
@swiftWord You could convince me with properly documented evidence, which you have failed to provide. On the other hand I have provided you with material demonstrating the artifact was not a geode but was an ordinary 1920's sparkplug. Since you are not capable of checking your information before posting, even from your own cited sources, you will not be commenting here anymore. Goodbye.
@swiftWord A letter to an editor, which is what you have cited here, does nothing in the way of providing evidence for your claim. It still does not identify the name of the geologist, or the method by which the sparkplug was dated and is still nothing more than an uncomfirmed hearsay account that is scientifically useless. As has been demonstrated numerous times, the artifact also was not a geode.
@trebob27 Yes that before being identified as a spark plug was dated to be 500,000 years old. I bet there are a lot of "hardened mud" fossils that are mis-dated.
@swiftWord "Yes that before being identified as a spark plug was dated to be 500,000 years old." According to a single hearsay account for which the geologist has never been identified and no study was ever published. Therefor the claim that the sparkplug was dated as 500,000 years old is completely baseless. It took me 5 minutes to looks up that information. You would do well to make sure you have all the information before making comments here in the future.
if your asking us to prove that the universe is older than 7000 years old, I have a question. Prove that theres a god and with evidence that is recent, not the bible that was written by man.
@atzutzu "please prove me that any object in this universe is older than 7000 years"
We can see starlight from objects farther away than 7,000 lightyears. You might try to get around this by saying light could have been faster in the past but this would still require an older universe than young earth creationists are willing to accept. watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y
@trebob27 I just wanted to say that I am no creationist nor much of a religion fan. I do however find some of these artifacts very interesting. mind you not in any "supernatural" way. Just interesting in that are history may be wrong.
I do have to give you a HUGE amount of credit for being so precise and the scientifically direct nature in your debunking of these objects.
@atzutzu "or you can either try to get Hovind's 250k"
Hovind's challenge asks for evidence of things that evolutionary theory does not claim and has long since been discredited. Still, the challenge was met on Hovind's own terms and he rejected the presentation without listing a single valid objection. There are also many lines of evidence indicating the challenge is a fraud, and this is coming from a former creationist and Hovind fan.
I know you wont post this comment because your scared to death of letting any truth enter your comment section. If you want to learn some real Science then go check out my Favorited videos.
@coolvideo28 It was actually creationist dishonesty that led me to accept evolution as the fact that it is and I have a video about that if you're curios. Just a quick glance over your favorite videos shows numerous claims that have already been debunked. There is no truth to be found in creationist pseudoscience and such nonsense does not scare me in the slightest. The only time I consider removing comments is when people like you don't do their homework in advance. Nice try though.
the thing is that there really isnt any biblical evidence of a 'young earth'. unless you are arguing that the writers of the old testament were completely incapable of metaphor and allegory... essentially that they were complete idiots... there is no way of arriving at an actual date for the creation of the earth from the old testament.
the age of the earth and the age of the human race are completely seperate issues and have no bearing at all on whether or not god exists.
I am not a scientist, but even I can see that foot print was not made by anything walking. I shows none of the characteristics of ape or human type prints whatsoever. Apes and humans do not step evenly, parts of the print should naturally be deeper and why is the toe board so wide while the heel so narrow? There is nothing natural about that print.
@johnthreesixteen316 "... The only 'evolution' we see is micro evolution... " This is a lie, and along with the rest of your comment has been debunked so thoroughly that I am not going to waste any time on it. Also, you might want to check out my channel rules conveniently referenced at the start of this video.
How come all these Darwin nuts omit the fact, that Darwin himself wrote, that if his theory of evolution could not be definitively proven within 100 years of its writing, that it should be disregarded all together??!! It has been quite a bit more than 100 years, and the THEORY of evolution, has still NOT been proven.
@circutracer150 Your comment indicates that you have no understanding of what a theory is in the scientific definition, and that you have no understanding of the massive amounts of evidence of evolution that have been observed and documented. Please take the time to educate yourself on these matters before making unsupported and long since falsified statements.
@trebob27 So, you make the assumption, that because my view dissents from yours, that I am uneducated? Someone got a little butt-hurt by my factual statement huh?
Many claims AGAINST evolution have been documented and evidence observed too. But that doesn't matter to you, because you like eating what you are spoon fed by others, to attempt to grasp a world and concepts, that you cannot understand yourself.
@circutracer150 "So, you make the assumption, that because my view dissents from yours, that I am uneducated?"
I didn't say you were uneducated. I simply stated that (as is further evidenced by your reply) that you do not have an adequate understanding of evolution and the scientific method to be able to argue against them. This is not an uncommon problem among those making claims similar to yours.
@circutracer150 "But that doesn't matter to you, because you like eating what you are spoon fed by others, to attempt to grasp a world and concepts, that you cannot understand yourself."
No, in fact I came to accept evolution as the fact that it is due to my time as a young earth creationist. The title of the video is "creationism, not evolution, caused my crisis of faith." I suggest you watch it before you make any more blind and unsupported accusations.
@circutracer150 You think that you scare me? This is laughable. You're just another science denier who has not bothered to lift a finger to do any amount of research. I'm am not in the slightest bit scared or intimidated by people like you. In the message you sent me you said "no transitional form can be found." That is a lie. Many transitional fossils have been documented based on predictions evolutionary theory makes. Not only have you failed to do your homework, but you are also a liar.
@circutracer150 You also said "The theory of evolution shows, that when a species evolves, the WHOLE species evolves. In short, there simply would be no more apes." Evolution states no such thing. It's like saying "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" Clearly you have no understanding of what evolution states.
Since you aren't willing to research your claims in advance, you will not be commenting here anymore.
So you figure that everything was created by nothing? ye of little faith. Better to go threw life thinking there is a GOD, and find there is none, than going threw life thinking there is not, and finding there is......Hello?
@55ratboy I never said I thought everything came from nothing (only creationists think this) nor did I say that I do not think there is a God. You would do well to avoid putting words into other peoples mouths in the future.
@55ratboy You're comment regarding the track was removed on the grounds that you clearly did not examine your claims before commenting. As stated in the summary of the references provided, "The track contains severe anatomic errors as well as abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures, indicating that it is a carving. ... The knowledge that similar tracks were carved in Glen Rose, and lack of in situ documentation for the track, further undermine claims that the track is genuine."
Great video. Young earth creationist of the Hovind ilk are embarrasing. If you are interested in Old Earth Creationist viewpoints that accept modern science as valid check out Hugh Ross.
I'm glad you covered that damn cowboy boot. Potholer54 could say "Oy Hovind this one's got fuckin' carbon in it!" Which ofcourse disqualifies it as a fossil. The truth is good for you, but you don't need a lab coat to figure that one out. ; )
I have been reading some of the comments and "arguments" from what must be a sampling of the 30 or so people who down-thumbed this video and I must say, they make a strong and visceral case for the ineffectiveness of natural selection.
i dont like creationism ether. i think its absolutely retarded. there is one thing im curious about though and thats the carvings and painting of dinosaurs found all over the world.
But this shit is not even what evolution is about. Natural selection and the theory of evolution cannot be disproved by creationists because the theory is not about the origin and historical environment of man. It is about the process through which things change in nature. It is not about us, but what happens around us ALL THE TIME. These arguments between factions happen all the time, mostly by people who are not scientists, many times to prove/disprove God. Poor science on both sides.
Most only limit their options by putting all faith in the method of Science,cause those who do tend to only listen to those b4 whom abided by the same law & so on,which only results in a limitation of the infinite possible variables which might truly explain & therefore truly enlighten any given topic
In the end its the Rogues of the Law,those born with instinct or a down right knowing that produce the revolutions in Science & simply use the method to receive recognition from the inept majority
Creationists and evolutionists are both chasing theories. Out of place artifacts are a seperate problem. weird artifacts are routinely removed from digs as "intrusive". If they don't they are simply shut down for sloppy work, challenging mainstream theories etc. In my opinion there is rather clear evidence for some advanced culture circa last glacial, but even stranger stuff turns up. No easy answers Read "Lost America" by Arlington Mallery for a start.
Retepvosnul , i am an 11yr. old student from Gettysburg , Pa. and have found your post and or replies to be intelligent especially when you call a rock a rock or an uninformed idiot what they are - " IDIOTS". But at the same time i can see by your writings that you defend the "OLD WAYS" of thinking to much and by that i mean at some point we must rethink what the past research and theories of old are. They are outdated! Recent finds point to an unrealistic model as we are taught "DARWINISM" ?
Turlte hands still confuse modern antropologists, I reently read a book called Dead men do tell tales, and its about criminal anthropology and the author mentioned people finding flippers and thinking they were human.
The hammer was discovered when a couple stumbled across a "small rock nodule with a piece of wood protruding it" the rock was not found in situ with any other rocks surrounding it. *The rock isn't calcium carbonate*. It is a concretion derived from iron leached from the hammer (the red-brown colour being consistant with iron(III)oxide) and other minerals in the creek from which it was discovered. This is by no means rare, and can occur within decades of the artifact being buried.
The funny things is...scientists AND creationists are gonna be blown away when they find out when AND how modern humans got here. It is gonna be exciting once they figure it out. I wish I could just tell em and get this over with. :(
You are plain and simple. unwritten history by humans is covered up. We uncover it, that is what we do.
Also, reports of digs are publicly accessible in many countries where you can not also find the results and interpretations, but also methods used and links to prior research that is often equally open and accessible.
If you can't be bothered to look this up, then you are a real lazy slob.
( Fossils do not usually fall under the scope of archaeology , you fossil ! ).
Well, not many independent archeologists.. Even though they are not much better. Most d-bags take their discoveries to the government and claim their prize. Only very few of them are righteous enough to show the people(educate).
Oh, and the people who rule over you know ALL OF IT already. They don't need archeologists to discover anything. They just distort the truth and when people finally come across something that is meaningful, their bias and brainwashed minds cant accept anything logical.
i agree with Audioslayer an i got a vertebrae im puzzled about it is much bigger then buffaloes an horse but what i find strange about it is it is like none ive ever seen it fits 2 gather with a ball joint in it like a leg dose in a hip that ball an cap effect if any man of science can explain it id appreciate it ~~ ive seen many problems with creationist motives an i can say the same about evolutionist as well an both have hidden the truth an created hoicks
I believe I saw a Fossilized Clam shell on the "Calcium Carbonate" that was covering the hammer. Hmmm .. Those are several Million years in the making. Now, What would God do in a Situation like this?
I drove to work along the Mt Vernon memorial Highway for many years. I rode the same route as a Child with my Father when we would visit our Dentist in Georgetown. Along the route there are many limestone bridges. Underneath these Bridges hang Stalactites. Some are over a Foot Long! Others are long enough that Trucks (which are not permitted on the parkway, though sometimes drive it anyway) hit them and broke parts off. Your theories say it takes millions of years for each inch to form. What up?
@4QBUD Stalactites in caves are Calcium Carbonate, which disolves slowly in water, and takes several thousand years to form. Stalactites under bridiges are Calcium Hydroxide, which disolves easily in water, and quickly form stalactites.
@gamesbok I htink you are thinking of these minerals backwards. milk of lime or Lime Water is the stuff that reacts to Metals, VIOLENTLY! That is Calcium Hydroxide. The former, Calcium Carbonate comes from Limestone, Sea Shells Pearls and many Rocks everywhere including the limestones used and the Bridges along the Parkway AND in Stalactites/stalagmites, Water stains in your sink, That "crust" forming around faucets etc. You can find all sorts of links by name on this here Interweb thingie.
@4QBUD I first noticed calcium hydroxide stalactites as a child on the artillary forts along the Thames estuary, built by General Gordon in about 1870. The forts are made from Aberdeen granite, but the calcium hydroxide comes from the mortar.
trebob27 - Thanks for posting this and for all your hard work making this video. I totaly agree with you. There is no question that you are 100% correct.
"I am a creationist and I do believe it was a serious error on the part of Carl Baugh and others like him to publicize these artifacts as evidence. However, the following things are still a mystery to this day: (1) The petrified man on display at Ripley's Believe It or Not Museum in Orlando, Florida (2) Ron Wyatt's Noah's Ark discovery on the mountains of Ararat
(3) Why are animals larger in the fossil record than they are today? Doesn't this present a problem for evolution?
"(1) The petrified man on display at Ripley's Believe It or Not Museum in Orlando, Florida"
I was able to find one picture of what you described. It looks amazingly like another known hoax known as the cardiff giant.
"(2) Ron Wyatt's Noah's Ark discovery on the mountains of Ararat"
Ron Wyatt's particular "discovery" was in fact in Dogubayazit, Turkey. I am assuming this is what you are referring to. This has been long since debunked for several reasons.
a) The metal traces that were interpreted as iron brackets were actually goethite, a hydrated iron oxide. This mineral was thoroughly mixed with clay, calcite, quartz, and anthophyllite particles, and it showed a large amount of chemical variability across the sample. Neither of these properties would occur in smelted iron.
b) The purported walls of the ark are limonite concentrations. Their boatlike shape is consistent with an eroded doubly plunging syncline. The stresses of such folding commonly cause fractures that cut across the layers. Water moving through these fractures would have produced the limonite concentrations that were interpreted as dividing walls.
c) No fossilized wood or traces of wood, reed, or elemental carbon were found associated with the structure.
d) The Durupinar site is incompatible with the biblical account. Genesis 8:4-6 says the flood waters receded for two and a half months after the ark landed before other mountaintops became visible. The Durupinar site is almost 10,000 feet lower than the summit of nearby Agri Dagh. Agri Dagh would have been visible above water even before the ark landed.
e) The alleged "anchor stones" were known to have been crafted by pagans for their worship before Christianity came to Armenia. The "rope holes" were niches for lamps. Also, The rock from which the anchor stones are made is volcanic rock found around Mount Ararat where the anchor stones were found, but not found in Mesopotamia (Iraq) from which Noah is alleged to have departed. If the stones were crafted by Noah, they would have come from the region where Noah came from, not where he landed.
All of these facts have been known for a long time.
"(3) Why are animals larger in the fossil record than they are today? Doesn't this present a problem for evolution?"
Why would it? Larger dinosaurs were likely cold-blooded. A warm-blooded animal of that size would have a difficult time regulating its body temperature. Note that the largest mammal (whale) today lives in the cold ocean, and one of the largest land mammals (the elephant) has enormous ears for cooling and rarely moves quickly.
So this is why mammals, at least, never get very large. And large dinosaurs are gone because of an extinction event. Furthermore, there was no competition from mammals and birds as we know them today. But today, mammals and birds have gotten such a foothold in their habitats, that something like the Komodo dragon today would have a hard time feeding itself if it was dramatically larger.
We should also be wary of believing every claim made just because a 'top' scientist made it, because what is 'fact ' changes with new discoveries, bandying facts around before checking modern/recent information about a it feeds doubting fires.
Some scientists do also have an agenda which they have to protect to ensure their jobs, reputations, wages etc and that should also be kept in mind.
We shouldnt believe things just because of the claimants social status be it from a phd or a priest.
A fact is an objective and verifiable observation (a fossil), it does not change, it just is. Theory attempts to explain the facts. This is where debate enters.
This is the whole reason behind the peer review process. Evolution has been peer reviewed on so many levels for 150 years. It's been proven.
ID has never been subjected nor submitted to peer review and the "facts" are usually manufactured or horribly misinterpreted or substituted with scripture or uneducated attacks on evolution.
The main problem with any religions is that it alienate the critical sense. Their word is BELIEVE not think about it. But we also should take science for what it is, the ACTUAL state of knowledge. And about the Archie book...well, excuse me I forgot it when I was Nefertitit's lovers :)
There is no place for fossils, they are found where they are found. As the geological column doe snot exists then we just have rocks and fossils, no timescale.
I do believe you got yourself blocked from my channel before for posting unsubstantiated and un-researched nonsense. I also have a low tolerance for people such as yourself who claim to be christians yet violate the 9th commandment on a regular basis and any time it suits them to. Perhaps I was too hasty in taking you off my ban-list. Please see the following videos before you comment here any further:
You and the rest of your ignoramous cronies still haven't answered what creationist have pointed out so eloquently, you have not found any "in-between" forms. Obviously, evolution is "still" a "plastic" theory...it is inherently forced to "change" all the time...you got noth'n but disparaging remarks against better science.
Where in nature is your alleged "geologic column"...hum? You dunce, all you got is a art-work, it's another "fabricated" joke that conveniently fits your pseudo-science.
BlindingInanity 2 weeks ago
@BlindingInanity "You and the rest of your ignoramous cronies still haven't answered what creationist have pointed out so eloquently, you have not found any "in-between" forms."
That’s a lie. There have been many transitional forms discovered and documented. The only way creationists get a way with claiming any different is by ignoring them or redefining what a transitional form is supposed to be (Kirk Cameron's crocoduck being a perfect example).
trebob27 1 week ago
@BlindingInanity "Obviously, evolution is "still" a "plastic" theory...it is inherently forced to "change" all the time..."
This is one of the strengths of any scientific theory. It can be changed or even thrown out if new evidence is presented. Compare that to creationists who continue to believe even after their materials are debunked repeatedly.
"you got noth'n but disparaging remarks against better science."
That's a perfect description of the creationist position.
trebob27 1 week ago
@BlindingInanity "Where in nature is your alleged "geologic column"...hum?"
Well documented, as you would know had you taken the time to do a little research.
trebob27 1 week ago
@BlindingInanity "You dunce, all you got is a art-work, it's another "fabricated" joke that conveniently fits your pseudo-science."
The only one speaking pseudo-science here right now is you. You don't get to come onto my channel and lie. Please see my channel rules before commenting again, pay close attention to those requiring you to check your own claims, as your statements show you failed to do.
trebob27 1 week ago
@BlindingInanity Hello again. You're newest comments were deleted for violation of my channel rules which you clearly didn't bother to read.
I'm not going to address the entire load of nonsense you posted this time, but I do want ot address a few statements you made.
"Whooo cares! All I wanted to do was zero in on you!"
And I zero in on what the evidence indicates. Next…
trebob27 1 week ago
@BlindingInanity "Whether you like it or not, you are not, and I repeat, you are not the final authority."
I never said I was. Stop putting words into my mouth.
"And one last thing...lose my email address! I don't want to dirty my email account."
I don't have your email address. Youtube sends out emails when replies are given to comments. It seems like you're making an awful lot of unsupported assumptions here.
trebob27 1 week ago
@BlindingInanity "There are many more brilliant scientists out there… "
Less than five percent of the scientific community, with that number falling to less than 1 percent in biology.
"… that have written off much of evolution because it is "unprovable!""
Except that much of it has been proven and put toward everyday applications.
"I'm sure it is in your mind, but we have to consider the source... "
Yup. I looked at all sides and where the evidence pointed. Also, ad hominem noted.
trebob27 1 week ago
@BlindingInanity Anywho… if you want to comment here again watch my video about my channel rules conveniently referenced at the start of this video, check to make sure your claims are accurate, and then try again.
trebob27 1 week ago
I thank you the uploader for showing some sense of intelligence in his dealings with various idiotic comments as can be witnessed above.
LackadaisicalE 2 weeks ago
A nice presentation. Thank you.
spacecadet35 2 months ago
Well theres one thing that makes me think, how is it that you think that eveolution is a scintific fact? when every scientist say is a THEORY there for not a fact, and not only that but its a THEORY based on another THEORY, which is the BIG BANG THEORY, according to the scientific chart you post in this video, you have to test and prove conclusively your claims or your back to the drawing board, can or has some one duplicated or prove conclusively the BIG BANG? or EVOLUTION? hint: NO
Almazyde 2 months ago
@Almazyde "how is it that you think that eveolution is a scintific fact? when every scientist say is a THEORY there for not a fact",
In science a theory is a tested explanation of a large number of observed facts that is so good it can be used to make accurate predictions. This "theory not fact" nonsense has been debunked for a long time and you are either willfully ignoranant or trolling.
talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CA/CA201(dot)html
trebob27 2 months ago
@Almazyde "… and not only that but its a THEORY based on another THEORY, which is the BIG BANG THEORY… ",
Umm… no. Big bang addresses the development of the universe. Evolution relates only to biology and the diversity of life after it got rolling. They have nothing to do with each other. BTW… big bang made testable predictions that later turned out to be true. talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang(dot)html
trebob27 2 months ago
@Almazyde "according to the scientific chart you post in this video, you have to test and prove conclusively your claims or your back to the drawing board"
Again, no. No scientific theory is ever proven conclusively. 99% certainty is just fine, and allows for the possibility of future observations requiring the theory be altered or thrown out entirely.
trebob27 2 months ago
@Almazyde "can or has some one duplicated or prove conclusively the BIG BANG?"
We don't have to duplicate it to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that it happened. If I get home and my chair is ripped up and my dog is covered in fabric do I need to duplicate my dog ripping apart my chair to be sure that’s what happened? No. "or EVOLUTION? hint: NO"
Actually in this case, YES. Evolution has been observed both in the lab and in nature.
talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CA/CA202(dot)html
trebob27 2 months ago
@Almazyde Try researching your claim in advance, as is required in my channel rules referenced at the start of the video, if you want to comment here again.
trebob27 2 months ago
@Almazyde There is a theory of gravity. Do you believe in gravity? Hint: Yes
tigeroak 2 months ago
Evolution defies the laws of thermo dynamics, something its creator would not have known about when he invented his theory. Nothing in this universe will advance by its own means, but rather degenerate instead.
shawneegeek 2 months ago
@shawneegeek "Evolution defies the laws of thermo dynamics, something its creator would not have known about when he invented his theory. Nothing in this universe will advance by its own means, but rather degenerate instead."
… "Degenerate instead", inside of a closed system. Earth, incase you hadn't noticed the big glowing day ball in the sky is not a closed system. The "Evolution defies the laws of thermo dynamics" bit has been known to be false for a long time.
trebob27 2 months ago
@shawneegeek Try actually double checking your own claims before you comment here again.
trebob27 2 months ago
@shawneegeek Hello again. Your newest comments were removed as they violated my channel rules for not double checking your own claims. The only bias shown in any of the links I provided was towards the facts. It is a fact that evolution has been observed. It is a fact that evolution has been used to make predictions that were later confirmed. It is a fact that those who protest the theory of evolution ussually do not show any understanding of it or what a theory actually is. (continued)
trebob27 2 months ago
@shawneegeek As you do not wish to research your claims, including attempting to understand that in science a theory is a tested explanation of observed facts, you will not be commenting here again. Goodbye.
trebob27 2 months ago
Check the alloy of the hammer, also if the footprints were hoaxed, then why is there impressions in the stone under the points of contact with the most weight, and why were scientist able to find that both footprints continued under the layers still covered by stone? These were both documented on camera. Next explain the fine tuning of the cosmological constant and why its so presice if the universe is just a random occourance. Where is your missing link?
shawneegeek 2 months ago
@shawneegeek "Check the alloy of the hammer,"
Check the links provided, as you were required to do by my channel rules before commenting anyway.
"also if the footprints were hoaxed, then why is there impressions in the stone under the points of contact with the most weight, and why were scientist able to find that both footprints continued under the layers still covered by stone? These were both documented on camera."
Research references addressing this claim have been provided.
trebob27 2 months ago
@shawneegeek "Next explain the fine tuning of the cosmological constant and why its so presice if the universe is just a random occourance."
I'm not even sure what it is you're tying to say here.
"Where is your missing link?"
If by missing link you mean transitional fossils, they are overly abundant. See my channel rules, they will direct you to resources on this issue.
trebob27 2 months ago
You have a good point here and I hope you can keep the debate going and make others look and research for the facts be it for or against your work. I think that such thought makes us as a species stronger and proves that we can better ourselves. science will look at things through critical eyes and for truth. Creationist will always filter their findings based on whether it supports their position or not. In any event these types of post make you think and research keep them coming. Kudos to ya
1ordequis 4 months ago
There is no scientific approach that does not begin with a theory. It is impossible to prove the geologic column because it based on unscientific circular logic. Moreover there is no agreement regarding how the cosmos and specifically our solar system was formed that meets the requirements of basic physics. Funny you don't happen to mention that.
mblondino 4 months ago
@mblondino "There is no scientific approach that does not begin with a theory." Begin with a theory? You have just shown you have no idea how science works. The rest of your statement is nonsensical and easily falsifiable. Like it says at the start of this video, I suggest you see my channel rules about checking up on your own claims before commenting.
trebob27 4 months ago
Well, at least he died with his boots on.
DaddyOD13 4 months ago
I believe the word traitor applies.
ChrisnStarry 4 months ago
@ChrisnStarry Where and how?
trebob27 4 months ago
Why did you cut my other comment? Is it that you cannot dispute what I said? Channel Rules? what a cop-out. Just say you will not allow positions that you can't defeat. of coarse I don't expect you to allow this to post either. So I accept your surrender.
ToxicPaintsworks 4 months ago
@ToxicPaintsworks "Why did you cut my other comment?" and "Channel Rules? what a cop-out." Rule #1 is to research your own claims ahead of time to make sure they are accurate. This comment from you is as good an indicator as any that you do not care whether such is the case. Therefor, there is no point in having any further discussion with you. I have not surrendered, but by refusing twice to check your claims for accuracy you have given yours. And I accept.
trebob27 4 months ago
Is a tree trunk passing through millions of years of strata layers not out of place. Don't just say its been debunked as you do to everything else. prove it.
ToxicPaintsworks 4 months ago
@ToxicPaintsworks If you read the start of the video you will notice that I reference my channel rules. A requirement of those rules is to check your own claims as you have failed to do. It is not my job to spoon feed the same information over and over. If you care whether or not the statements you make are accurate you will have no problem referencing those rules and following up on the polystrate fossils claim yourself. If you do not care, you will not be commenting here again. Your call.
trebob27 4 months ago
follow the science not the poof out of mid air
tdd4art 4 months ago
i never understood how out of place fossals such as the would debunk evolution. it seems to me that it would be proof of time traval seeing ass its all human related. its note like there is an elephent bone with t rex bight marks. if its human its time traval end of story
Shard18 4 months ago
Evolution concept is easily provable false and will soon be discarded into the dumpster of history. Think!
lblmer 5 months ago
@lblmer The idea that evolution is "easily provable false and will soon be discarded" is one of the longest running falsehoods in creationism. Evolution is as well established a theory (which in this case does not mean guess) as is gravity. People who claim otherwise typically show absolutely no understanding of what evolution is or what evolutionary theory actually states. watch?v=tCU3bCQ34x8
trebob27 5 months ago
@lblmer You nutjobs have been saying that for 150 years. It sort of puts you in the dumpster of history.
mzmadmike 4 months ago
Creationists don't think that it is a sin to tell a lie; if they do it to promote their delusion.
legion1a 5 months ago
id concede all your points. never gave one of them a thought. but, a little spiteful are we?? a creationist insult you? your videos I so loaded with condescension its stunning.
Macysdad2 5 months ago
can you explain about the baghdad battery or the sreation of pyramid in egypt?
matchosem 5 months ago
@matchosem I'm curious about these questions as well. Mainly what your thoughts, or explanations may be on the 'Baghdad Battery'. (?)
comadjinn 4 months ago
For your own benefit, you should consider not quoting or referencing Kent Hovind. He is a convicted fraudster with a falsified education. Citing him makes it very easy for people that choose to, to discount your research.
EarlofCrawford 6 months ago
@EarlofCrawford That's why I'm only referencing him to show that he has made a ridiculous claim.
trebob27 6 months ago
Thank you for this clip, i hope this will clear many brains of their delusions.
Finnaly i find someone who makes a good video who aint full of bs!
Ive been so upset when seeing large amounts of nonesense here on youtube i wanted to make a vid just like this one :P
Im working on some mathematics now to show how DUMB creationism really are.
They wanna lie to make evolution seem like a fraud.
Well lets find out how creationism explains some hardcore Mathematics
TheGoatherdGod 6 months ago
Coso artifact? How do you explain that one?
needparalegal 7 months ago
@needparalegal I've already addressed this in the comments.
trebob27 7 months ago
Never addressed the blood cells, vessels & still elastic skin & flesh of the supposed 65 MYO T-Rex Dinosaur/Dragon, or the supposed billions of YO "extinct" Coelacanth fish still alive today, and etc., etc., Wonder why? Take a crap then fall back into it.
sparky6025 8 months ago
@sparky6025 The supposed soft trex tissue has long been debunked and it's well known that creationists misrepresented the actual findings. Desertphile has a great summary of the issue. watch?v=B-6a9wHnvFA
The coelacanth argument also collapses easily once a little bit of research is done. watch?v=rMa9icQlP-o
Consult my channel rules before you make more baseless comments here.
trebob27 8 months ago
@trebob27 Potholer54 YT channel has good debunking material.
Mitche23 7 months ago
@sparky6025 The cells & flesh wasn't elastic until chemically processed. Turns out a process of polymerization occurs in nearly half of all fossils in which some material is protected from decaying prior to mineral embedding.
So you can throw away that "evidence," now.
We have known about polymerization for a long time, just didn't know it could work for so long in fossils.
A modern artist uses a similar technique to preserve humans in poses for art exhibitions - look it up! Plastic humans!
looncraz 7 months ago
@swiftWord You could convince me with properly documented evidence, which you have failed to provide. On the other hand I have provided you with material demonstrating the artifact was not a geode but was an ordinary 1920's sparkplug. Since you are not capable of checking your information before posting, even from your own cited sources, you will not be commenting here anymore. Goodbye.
trebob27 8 months ago
@swiftWord A letter to an editor, which is what you have cited here, does nothing in the way of providing evidence for your claim. It still does not identify the name of the geologist, or the method by which the sparkplug was dated and is still nothing more than an uncomfirmed hearsay account that is scientifically useless. As has been demonstrated numerous times, the artifact also was not a geode.
trebob27 8 months ago
Never addressed the Coso artifact I wonder why......
swiftWord 8 months ago
@swiftWord You mean the 1920's champion spark plug that was found in hardened mud?
badarchaeology(dot)net/data/ooparts/coso(dot)php
ncse(dot)com/rncse/24/2/coso-artifact
trebob27 8 months ago
@trebob27 Yes that before being identified as a spark plug was dated to be 500,000 years old. I bet there are a lot of "hardened mud" fossils that are mis-dated.
swiftWord 8 months ago
@swiftWord "Yes that before being identified as a spark plug was dated to be 500,000 years old." According to a single hearsay account for which the geologist has never been identified and no study was ever published. Therefor the claim that the sparkplug was dated as 500,000 years old is completely baseless. It took me 5 minutes to looks up that information. You would do well to make sure you have all the information before making comments here in the future.
trebob27 8 months ago
lol @ venomfangx there's a name i haven't heard in a few years
hurmpfff 8 months ago
Yecs are such liars and cowards.
Cainkane1 8 months ago
if your asking us to prove that the universe is older than 7000 years old, I have a question. Prove that theres a god and with evidence that is recent, not the bible that was written by man.
jackhh42 8 months ago
Thanks for a laugh reading the posts, arguing with creationists is like having a political debate with a retarded gerbil.
dimitryklush 10 months ago
God Calls you ''willingly Ingorant''
please prove me that any object in this universe is older than 7000 years :)
or you can either try to get Hovind's 250k :) he's not asking for much you know...
u're the kind of guy who would try to proove the roman empire never existed
i feel sorry four you.
atzutzu 10 months ago
@atzutzu "please prove me that any object in this universe is older than 7000 years"
We can see starlight from objects farther away than 7,000 lightyears. You might try to get around this by saying light could have been faster in the past but this would still require an older universe than young earth creationists are willing to accept. watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y
If you have a way around this please let me know.
trebob27 10 months ago
@trebob27 I just wanted to say that I am no creationist nor much of a religion fan. I do however find some of these artifacts very interesting. mind you not in any "supernatural" way. Just interesting in that are history may be wrong.
I do have to give you a HUGE amount of credit for being so precise and the scientifically direct nature in your debunking of these objects.
Do you have more videos like these?
broadkil 8 months ago
@atzutzu "or you can either try to get Hovind's 250k"
Hovind's challenge asks for evidence of things that evolutionary theory does not claim and has long since been discredited. Still, the challenge was met on Hovind's own terms and he rejected the presentation without listing a single valid objection. There are also many lines of evidence indicating the challenge is a fraud, and this is coming from a former creationist and Hovind fan.
trebob27 10 months ago
@atzutzu "u're..."
You're. Not u're.
"... the kind of guy who would try to proove the roman empire never existed."
No. I don't know why you would think this.
"i feel sorry four you."
For. Not four.
trebob27 10 months ago
@atzutzu r u serious? i can give you HARD PROOF of many things that are far older than 7000 yrs. r u that ignorant??
guineapiggyman 10 months ago
Creation is the hardest pill to swallow, next to the birth of Christ. Thank you for this video. It is great.
dylandestroy666 11 months ago
great video, and great WORK.
SuperRedSeptember 1 year ago
I love this video. I'll be watching more.
erk13z 1 year ago
I know you wont post this comment because your scared to death of letting any truth enter your comment section. If you want to learn some real Science then go check out my Favorited videos.
coolvideo28 1 year ago
@coolvideo28 It was actually creationist dishonesty that led me to accept evolution as the fact that it is and I have a video about that if you're curios. Just a quick glance over your favorite videos shows numerous claims that have already been debunked. There is no truth to be found in creationist pseudoscience and such nonsense does not scare me in the slightest. The only time I consider removing comments is when people like you don't do their homework in advance. Nice try though.
trebob27 1 year ago
the thing is that there really isnt any biblical evidence of a 'young earth'. unless you are arguing that the writers of the old testament were completely incapable of metaphor and allegory... essentially that they were complete idiots... there is no way of arriving at an actual date for the creation of the earth from the old testament.
the age of the earth and the age of the human race are completely seperate issues and have no bearing at all on whether or not god exists.
buy a clue.
flashypaws 1 year ago
I am not a scientist, but even I can see that foot print was not made by anything walking. I shows none of the characteristics of ape or human type prints whatsoever. Apes and humans do not step evenly, parts of the print should naturally be deeper and why is the toe board so wide while the heel so narrow? There is nothing natural about that print.
Maniken360 1 year ago
@johnthreesixteen316 "... The only 'evolution' we see is micro evolution... " This is a lie, and along with the rest of your comment has been debunked so thoroughly that I am not going to waste any time on it. Also, you might want to check out my channel rules conveniently referenced at the start of this video.
trebob27 1 year ago
How come all these Darwin nuts omit the fact, that Darwin himself wrote, that if his theory of evolution could not be definitively proven within 100 years of its writing, that it should be disregarded all together??!! It has been quite a bit more than 100 years, and the THEORY of evolution, has still NOT been proven.
circutracer150 1 year ago
@circutracer150 Your comment indicates that you have no understanding of what a theory is in the scientific definition, and that you have no understanding of the massive amounts of evidence of evolution that have been observed and documented. Please take the time to educate yourself on these matters before making unsupported and long since falsified statements.
trebob27 1 year ago
@trebob27 So, you make the assumption, that because my view dissents from yours, that I am uneducated? Someone got a little butt-hurt by my factual statement huh?
Many claims AGAINST evolution have been documented and evidence observed too. But that doesn't matter to you, because you like eating what you are spoon fed by others, to attempt to grasp a world and concepts, that you cannot understand yourself.
circutracer150 1 year ago
@circutracer150 "So, you make the assumption, that because my view dissents from yours, that I am uneducated?"
I didn't say you were uneducated. I simply stated that (as is further evidenced by your reply) that you do not have an adequate understanding of evolution and the scientific method to be able to argue against them. This is not an uncommon problem among those making claims similar to yours.
trebob27 1 year ago
@circutracer150 "Someone got a little butt-hurt by my factual statement huh?"
You haven't made a factual statement here yet, so no.
"Many claims AGAINST evolution have been documented and evidence observed too."
Such as? Most such claims tend to show a poor understanding of what evolution actually is, how it works, and the observations confirming it.
trebob27 1 year ago
@circutracer150 "But that doesn't matter to you, because you like eating what you are spoon fed by others, to attempt to grasp a world and concepts, that you cannot understand yourself."
No, in fact I came to accept evolution as the fact that it is due to my time as a young earth creationist. The title of the video is "creationism, not evolution, caused my crisis of faith." I suggest you watch it before you make any more blind and unsupported accusations.
trebob27 1 year ago
@circutracer150 You think that you scare me? This is laughable. You're just another science denier who has not bothered to lift a finger to do any amount of research. I'm am not in the slightest bit scared or intimidated by people like you. In the message you sent me you said "no transitional form can be found." That is a lie. Many transitional fossils have been documented based on predictions evolutionary theory makes. Not only have you failed to do your homework, but you are also a liar.
trebob27 1 year ago
@circutracer150 You also said "The theory of evolution shows, that when a species evolves, the WHOLE species evolves. In short, there simply would be no more apes." Evolution states no such thing. It's like saying "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?" Clearly you have no understanding of what evolution states.
Since you aren't willing to research your claims in advance, you will not be commenting here anymore.
trebob27 1 year ago
So you figure that everything was created by nothing? ye of little faith. Better to go threw life thinking there is a GOD, and find there is none, than going threw life thinking there is not, and finding there is......Hello?
55ratboy 1 year ago
@55ratboy I never said I thought everything came from nothing (only creationists think this) nor did I say that I do not think there is a God. You would do well to avoid putting words into other peoples mouths in the future.
trebob27 1 year ago
@55ratboy You're comment regarding the track was removed on the grounds that you clearly did not examine your claims before commenting. As stated in the summary of the references provided, "The track contains severe anatomic errors as well as abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures, indicating that it is a carving. ... The knowledge that similar tracks were carved in Glen Rose, and lack of in situ documentation for the track, further undermine claims that the track is genuine."
trebob27 1 year ago
@55ratboy Also, since you don't seem interested in doing research when references are provided, you won't be commenting here anymore.
trebob27 1 year ago
Great video. Young earth creationist of the Hovind ilk are embarrasing. If you are interested in Old Earth Creationist viewpoints that accept modern science as valid check out Hugh Ross.
LetzBeaFranque 1 year ago
@LetzBeaFranque One thing I forgot - Hugh Ross doesn't accept evolution.
LetzBeaFranque 1 year ago
awsome video. we need more of this kind! Keep up the good work and keep digging! :)
joshanator1 1 year ago
I'm glad you covered that damn cowboy boot. Potholer54 could say "Oy Hovind this one's got fuckin' carbon in it!" Which ofcourse disqualifies it as a fossil. The truth is good for you, but you don't need a lab coat to figure that one out. ; )
jay81rd 1 year ago
will you be making more of these videos
cause south america has some interesting things that have yet to be verified
like crystal skulls
those round stones in costa rica, and mayan stones with dinosaur pics
and then in russia they have human foot prints next to dinosaurs
the article i read said russian scientist think it was aliens lol
i cant seem to finde reliable info on those few
silencebekons156 1 year ago
I have been reading some of the comments and "arguments" from what must be a sampling of the 30 or so people who down-thumbed this video and I must say, they make a strong and visceral case for the ineffectiveness of natural selection.
Noisegator 1 year ago
i dont like creationism ether. i think its absolutely retarded. there is one thing im curious about though and thats the carvings and painting of dinosaurs found all over the world.
P4brains 1 year ago
time traveling.
oscaralexis 1 year ago
Good job man. Stick it to em. They just cant accept that their totally blind faith can be eviscerated by middle school science. Keep it up.
bmxslayer 1 year ago
But this shit is not even what evolution is about. Natural selection and the theory of evolution cannot be disproved by creationists because the theory is not about the origin and historical environment of man. It is about the process through which things change in nature. It is not about us, but what happens around us ALL THE TIME. These arguments between factions happen all the time, mostly by people who are not scientists, many times to prove/disprove God. Poor science on both sides.
ruithael 1 year ago
WHAT THE... 1:55 o.O!? A hammer? how...
VendPrekmurec 1 year ago
u tell them ^_^ there is 1 true out of place fossil foot print confermed but it could just be proof of time trave.
Shard18 1 year ago
Comment removed
wannabecarguy 1 year ago
Most only limit their options by putting all faith in the method of Science,cause those who do tend to only listen to those b4 whom abided by the same law & so on,which only results in a limitation of the infinite possible variables which might truly explain & therefore truly enlighten any given topic
In the end its the Rogues of the Law,those born with instinct or a down right knowing that produce the revolutions in Science & simply use the method to receive recognition from the inept majority
the26thhour 1 year ago
Good video
hoosierhiver 1 year ago
Comment removed
jamyfromfin 2 years ago
Exelente!!
filonenko26 2 years ago
Creationists and evolutionists are both chasing theories. Out of place artifacts are a seperate problem. weird artifacts are routinely removed from digs as "intrusive". If they don't they are simply shut down for sloppy work, challenging mainstream theories etc. In my opinion there is rather clear evidence for some advanced culture circa last glacial, but even stranger stuff turns up. No easy answers Read "Lost America" by Arlington Mallery for a start.
djmarkway 2 years ago
creationists are merely blind fate dumb fuck people...period..
IndoAtheist 2 years ago
That doesn't prove that large bipeds didn't exist millions of years ago.
needparalegal 2 years ago
Retepvosnul , i am an 11yr. old student from Gettysburg , Pa. and have found your post and or replies to be intelligent especially when you call a rock a rock or an uninformed idiot what they are - " IDIOTS". But at the same time i can see by your writings that you defend the "OLD WAYS" of thinking to much and by that i mean at some point we must rethink what the past research and theories of old are. They are outdated! Recent finds point to an unrealistic model as we are taught "DARWINISM" ?
007antimatter 2 years ago
Darwinism is 100 years out of date, Darwin was not right about everything. The theory has expanded.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Turlte hands still confuse modern antropologists, I reently read a book called Dead men do tell tales, and its about criminal anthropology and the author mentioned people finding flippers and thinking they were human.
soupie 2 years ago
The hammer was discovered when a couple stumbled across a "small rock nodule with a piece of wood protruding it" the rock was not found in situ with any other rocks surrounding it. *The rock isn't calcium carbonate*. It is a concretion derived from iron leached from the hammer (the red-brown colour being consistant with iron(III)oxide) and other minerals in the creek from which it was discovered. This is by no means rare, and can occur within decades of the artifact being buried.
oOoxelAoOo 2 years ago
The funny things is...scientists AND creationists are gonna be blown away when they find out when AND how modern humans got here. It is gonna be exciting once they figure it out. I wish I could just tell em and get this over with. :(
sw33tlouie 2 years ago
Archaeology exists to cover up history. Plain and simple.
Audioslayer 2 years ago
You are plain and simple. unwritten history by humans is covered up. We uncover it, that is what we do.
Also, reports of digs are publicly accessible in many countries where you can not also find the results and interpretations, but also methods used and links to prior research that is often equally open and accessible.
If you can't be bothered to look this up, then you are a real lazy slob.
( Fossils do not usually fall under the scope of archaeology , you fossil ! ).
retepvosnul 2 years ago
Well, not many independent archeologists.. Even though they are not much better. Most d-bags take their discoveries to the government and claim their prize. Only very few of them are righteous enough to show the people(educate).
Oh, and the people who rule over you know ALL OF IT already. They don't need archeologists to discover anything. They just distort the truth and when people finally come across something that is meaningful, their bias and brainwashed minds cant accept anything logical.
Audioslayer 2 years ago
Are you insane ? What are you talking about ?
In europe for instance, Archaeology is mandatory by law. Stricks rules and laws are kept to get maximum yield in information and survival of sites.
You do not know much about this do you ?
retepvosnul 2 years ago
It's all subjective to opinion at this point I guess.
It doesn't matter. It's all been found, it's all known. You just need to find it.
Good luck,
YAH bless you.
Audioslayer 2 years ago
i agree with Audioslayer an i got a vertebrae im puzzled about it is much bigger then buffaloes an horse but what i find strange about it is it is like none ive ever seen it fits 2 gather with a ball joint in it like a leg dose in a hip that ball an cap effect if any man of science can explain it id appreciate it ~~ ive seen many problems with creationist motives an i can say the same about evolutionist as well an both have hidden the truth an created hoicks
crazycoyotie 2 years ago
I believe I saw a Fossilized Clam shell on the "Calcium Carbonate" that was covering the hammer. Hmmm .. Those are several Million years in the making. Now, What would God do in a Situation like this?
Grey9man 2 years ago
..Science is saying....." Don't let your lying eyes...decieve you." I wonder when they will get tired....of being wrong.
vachief 2 years ago
I drove to work along the Mt Vernon memorial Highway for many years. I rode the same route as a Child with my Father when we would visit our Dentist in Georgetown. Along the route there are many limestone bridges. Underneath these Bridges hang Stalactites. Some are over a Foot Long! Others are long enough that Trucks (which are not permitted on the parkway, though sometimes drive it anyway) hit them and broke parts off. Your theories say it takes millions of years for each inch to form. What up?
4QBUD 2 years ago
@4QBUD Stalactites in caves are Calcium Carbonate, which disolves slowly in water, and takes several thousand years to form. Stalactites under bridiges are Calcium Hydroxide, which disolves easily in water, and quickly form stalactites.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@gamesbok I htink you are thinking of these minerals backwards. milk of lime or Lime Water is the stuff that reacts to Metals, VIOLENTLY! That is Calcium Hydroxide. The former, Calcium Carbonate comes from Limestone, Sea Shells Pearls and many Rocks everywhere including the limestones used and the Bridges along the Parkway AND in Stalactites/stalagmites, Water stains in your sink, That "crust" forming around faucets etc. You can find all sorts of links by name on this here Interweb thingie.
4QBUD 1 year ago
@4QBUD The calcium hydroxide you see as stalactites under bridges comes from the mortar.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@4QBUD I first noticed calcium hydroxide stalactites as a child on the artillary forts along the Thames estuary, built by General Gordon in about 1870. The forts are made from Aberdeen granite, but the calcium hydroxide comes from the mortar.
gamesbok 1 year ago
@4QBUD Natural cave stalactite formation
Solution - CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(aq) → Ca(HCO3)2(aq) CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(aq) → Ca(HCO3)2(aq)
Precipitation - Ca(HCO3)2(aq) → CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(aq)
Bridge stalactite formation
Solution - CaO(s) + H2O(l) → Ca(OH)2(aq)
Precipitation - Ca(OH)2(aq) + CO2(g) → CaCO3(s) + H2O(l)
gamesbok 1 year ago
trebob27 - Thanks for posting this and for all your hard work making this video. I totaly agree with you. There is no question that you are 100% correct.
Julian123123123 2 years ago
so this vidoe really is about creationists and evolutionists not oop truly ,,,, well theres more to be said about both
lesterclaypool1 2 years ago
ok after I heard totally what this guy has said.
I agree with him
eddiedaskull 2 years ago
why does it have to be a religious thing.
No one can disprove the fact wither a diven creator exists or not.
However,These finds could explain time travel or prove that time travel could exist
eddiedaskull 2 years ago
Just another hater video...
sweetbilly 2 years ago
In regards to a comment made by Gozer1122, I hit remove instead of reply. I am reposting your comment and my replies to it:
trebob27 2 years ago
"I am a creationist and I do believe it was a serious error on the part of Carl Baugh and others like him to publicize these artifacts as evidence. However, the following things are still a mystery to this day: (1) The petrified man on display at Ripley's Believe It or Not Museum in Orlando, Florida (2) Ron Wyatt's Noah's Ark discovery on the mountains of Ararat
(3) Why are animals larger in the fossil record than they are today? Doesn't this present a problem for evolution?
please comment"
trebob27 2 years ago
My replies are as follows:
"(1) The petrified man on display at Ripley's Believe It or Not Museum in Orlando, Florida"
I was able to find one picture of what you described. It looks amazingly like another known hoax known as the cardiff giant.
"(2) Ron Wyatt's Noah's Ark discovery on the mountains of Ararat"
Ron Wyatt's particular "discovery" was in fact in Dogubayazit, Turkey. I am assuming this is what you are referring to. This has been long since debunked for several reasons.
trebob27 2 years ago
a) The metal traces that were interpreted as iron brackets were actually goethite, a hydrated iron oxide. This mineral was thoroughly mixed with clay, calcite, quartz, and anthophyllite particles, and it showed a large amount of chemical variability across the sample. Neither of these properties would occur in smelted iron.
trebob27 2 years ago
b) The purported walls of the ark are limonite concentrations. Their boatlike shape is consistent with an eroded doubly plunging syncline. The stresses of such folding commonly cause fractures that cut across the layers. Water moving through these fractures would have produced the limonite concentrations that were interpreted as dividing walls.
c) No fossilized wood or traces of wood, reed, or elemental carbon were found associated with the structure.
trebob27 2 years ago
d) The Durupinar site is incompatible with the biblical account. Genesis 8:4-6 says the flood waters receded for two and a half months after the ark landed before other mountaintops became visible. The Durupinar site is almost 10,000 feet lower than the summit of nearby Agri Dagh. Agri Dagh would have been visible above water even before the ark landed.
trebob27 2 years ago
e) The alleged "anchor stones" were known to have been crafted by pagans for their worship before Christianity came to Armenia. The "rope holes" were niches for lamps. Also, The rock from which the anchor stones are made is volcanic rock found around Mount Ararat where the anchor stones were found, but not found in Mesopotamia (Iraq) from which Noah is alleged to have departed. If the stones were crafted by Noah, they would have come from the region where Noah came from, not where he landed.
trebob27 2 years ago
All of these facts have been known for a long time.
"(3) Why are animals larger in the fossil record than they are today? Doesn't this present a problem for evolution?"
Why would it? Larger dinosaurs were likely cold-blooded. A warm-blooded animal of that size would have a difficult time regulating its body temperature. Note that the largest mammal (whale) today lives in the cold ocean, and one of the largest land mammals (the elephant) has enormous ears for cooling and rarely moves quickly.
trebob27 2 years ago
So this is why mammals, at least, never get very large. And large dinosaurs are gone because of an extinction event. Furthermore, there was no competition from mammals and birds as we know them today. But today, mammals and birds have gotten such a foothold in their habitats, that something like the Komodo dragon today would have a hard time feeding itself if it was dramatically larger.
trebob27 2 years ago
told.
whowantsamiles 2 years ago
lol creationists, thankfully I don't live in the US ^^
John2083 2 years ago
Christians do like their views which have been over and done with for decades, don't they : )
KevinLounsberry 2 years ago
We should also be wary of believing every claim made just because a 'top' scientist made it, because what is 'fact ' changes with new discoveries, bandying facts around before checking modern/recent information about a it feeds doubting fires.
Some scientists do also have an agenda which they have to protect to ensure their jobs, reputations, wages etc and that should also be kept in mind.
We shouldnt believe things just because of the claimants social status be it from a phd or a priest.
dortyhoor 2 years ago
A fact is an objective and verifiable observation (a fossil), it does not change, it just is. Theory attempts to explain the facts. This is where debate enters.
This is the whole reason behind the peer review process. Evolution has been peer reviewed on so many levels for 150 years. It's been proven.
ID has never been subjected nor submitted to peer review and the "facts" are usually manufactured or horribly misinterpreted or substituted with scripture or uneducated attacks on evolution.
chodaboy51500 2 years ago
The main problem with any religions is that it alienate the critical sense. Their word is BELIEVE not think about it. But we also should take science for what it is, the ACTUAL state of knowledge. And about the Archie book...well, excuse me I forgot it when I was Nefertitit's lovers :)
franktesla 2 years ago
has anyone ever herd of that archie comic found under a mummy in an ancient egyptian tomb?? im having trouble finding info on it
aHeavenscent 2 years ago
What do you think about those lil balls they found? The klerksdrop spheres ? I wonder if tht one is fake ...
GDZjeenik 2 years ago
oh god, prays Jesus!!
prays da lord`a
Apmypuk 2 years ago
Awmen bruddah awmen........Seriously, I am sarcastic too.
AmatatsuShitenshi 2 years ago
Thanks, I always wondered about that hammer.
jfnovotny 2 years ago
There is no place for fossils, they are found where they are found. As the geological column doe snot exists then we just have rocks and fossils, no timescale.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
"As the geological column doe snot exists"
Lie #1.
talkorigins(dot)org/indexcc/CD/CD101(dot)html
home(dot)entouch(dot)net/dmd/geo(dot)htm
"then we just have rocks and fossils, no timescale."
Lie #2. There are many ways of dating both the layers and fossils in question. talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/dating(dot)html
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth(dot)html
trebob27 2 years ago
I do believe you got yourself blocked from my channel before for posting unsubstantiated and un-researched nonsense. I also have a low tolerance for people such as yourself who claim to be christians yet violate the 9th commandment on a regular basis and any time it suits them to. Perhaps I was too hasty in taking you off my ban-list. Please see the following videos before you comment here any further:
watch?v=9sn-jbHX2VE
watch?v=0L5bo50zwrI
watch?v=tCU3bCQ34x8
trebob27 2 years ago
If you fail to research your claims this time, you won't be posting here again.
trebob27 2 years ago
how about the venus of brassempouy...?
is that not oopart...?
APNJ 2 years ago
Comment removed
arak2004 3 years ago
Comment removed
arak2004 3 years ago
um... what's up with talk origins? anyone else unable to bring up the web site?
hanzo138 3 years ago
Ok so its not just me. Fudge :-(
trebob27 3 years ago
AW CRAP! That was the answer I feared.
hanzo138 3 years ago
I did a little poking around and found out there has been a minor hiccup with the IP address and dns servers for the site.
Try looking at toarchive(DOT)org/
It should be back to the old address fairly soon.
trebob27 3 years ago
Sweet deal! Thanks man.
hanzo138 3 years ago