Basically this video demonstrates the honesty of evolutionary scientists. The narrator even admits it was unearthed by non scientists & it was not until evolutionary (not creationists) scientists got their hands on it (as with Piltdown man) that they exposed it as a fake. How can you claim this is the case with all transitionals?
Now if you want fake designed to intentionally to fool people then when you going to do a video on the Ica stones, Paluxy footprints and the "discovery" of the Ark?
Yeah, we found the missing link a long time ago. Ever heard of Archaeopteryx? And since, many, many feathered dinosaurs and primative birds have been found.
This case is a fraud, yes. But these people are LYING by saying that this was the missing link, because there is nothing missing. We've found many, many transitional species between dinosaurs and birds.
nothing ever proved that these dinosaurs had feathers , and please, Archaeopteryx? it was proven that there are birds older then Archaeopteryx, and Raptors along with trex were younger then Archaeopteryx , the oldest bird were shown to be older then the oldest theropod , so yaa, there is no missing Link, get your facts right before given us the Archaeopteryx bullcrap
@DevilRaptorB You're the only one here who's full of bullcrap, good sir.
1. We know some dinosaurs had feathers because of the inprintations left behind around the skelotons. That's also how we know that many had scaly skin.
2. There were no birds before Archaeopteryx. I don't know where you heard that there were, but it's not true.
3. Archaeopteryx lived during the Jurassic, 150 mya. Dromaeosaurs(Raptors) did not appear until the early cretaceous, 125 mya. And Tyrannosaurids not until 84 mya
1- so a dead animal can tell more then a living one? all feathred dinosaurs have been shown to not really have them
2-google "oldest bird" and lets see who would laugh after
3- you ether suck at Meth or u never finished school , how is 150 mya not older then 125 mya that proves if arch is evloved from raptors to birds then why is he older then the raptors?
1. Your claim "All feathered dinosaurs have been shown to not have them really have them" Is not true. We KNOW that raptors, some ornithomids and coelurosaurs, and possibly the therizinosaurs all had feathers. The evidence, again, comes from feather inprintations outlining the skeletons.
Oh and PARDON me, so xiaotingia zhengi is a bit older than archaeopteryx. So what?
and archaeopteryx is older then theropods which proves that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs unless their welling to say that arch and zhengi are younger then they claim it to be
@DevilRaptorB Ugh. No it's not. Archaeopteryx and and xiaotingia zhengi lived durring the middle-late Jurassic, and actually lived alongside large, highly evolved theropods like Ceratosaurus and Allosaurus. In fact, theropods were actually some of the first saurichian dinosaurs. Primative theropods like Coelophysoids had already been around during the Triassic, 230 million years ago - 75 million years BEFORE xiaotingia.
@DevilRaptorB And no, I do not suck at meth, how could I? (I don't do drugs, thank you very much) I don't have any problems with math, either. But no, I haven't finished school YET, as I am only 14 years old. My math is not bad, you just don't know what you're talking about. Archaeopteryx originally evolved from some kind of coelurosaur, NOT raptors (Although they are probably related).
I know what im talking about caz I did my own reaserch, sorry to dispoint you, but what they tought you at school about eveluation is nothing but theroies , nothing that they are 100% sure of
@DevilRaptorB I didn't learn any of that in school. I do my own research as well. REMEMBER: In the scientific community, even theories are always backed by some ammount of facts and evidence, otherwise they are not accepted to be valid claims.
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV first they said that all dinosaurs evolved to birds, then they said that birds evolved just from theropods , then they say they evolved from one other reptile , so its an endless chine of theries with nothing that have proven right , so no, there are no so called valid claim , only unvaild ones
@DevilRaptorB It was never believed that all dinosaurs evolved into birds. That's just some nonsense implied by dialogue from Jurassic Park, "Do you really think that the dinosaurs turned into birds, and that's where they all went?", needless to say, Hollywood has never been scientifically accurate with much of anything. As for the idea that birds came from other reptiles (Dinosaurs technically weren't reptiles though) I've never heard that, and I think it's probably just more of your BS.
more of my BS ? go ask anyone if dinosaurs are reptiles or not , if they believe in evolution they well tell u that that they are reptiles that birds evolve from, and if they don't their just tell you that their just reptiles , you don't have to take what I say as a fact , believe what you wana believe then
@DevilRaptorB Well I'm just trying to point out that most of your claims aren't even true.
Now yes, officially, all dinosaurs are classified under Reptilia. But in reality, dinosaurs don't actually fit into any animal class. They had most of the defining characteristics of reptiles, but were warm-blooded. Plus, many small theropods were also hollow-boned and had feathers, both of which are very bird-like traits.
@DevilRaptorB Most of the debate within this issue centers around the concept of macro-evolution. The idea of one species giving rise to the next, of entirely new species evolving from the old ones. This isn't really so much a fact yet as it is a well-supported theory. Most of the evidence comes from the fossil record, yes, but there is quite a bit seen in organisms today as well. One auxh example is the hip structures found in the tails of whales and dolphins.
well, even the small dinosaurs are classified as reptilia , so it make no sence, if you wana believe they evolved then fine by me, as for me , I can never believe evolution caz I know its not true, if its true then we humen should just dissapper caz were just crap if evelotion is true
@DevilRaptorB How does evolution make anything considered "Crap"....? If evolution is true, then that would make even the tiniest living things HUGE accomplishments of nature. The concept really is quite beautiful if you think about it.
However, human beings are what biologists call an "Exterminator Species". This is purly because of our destructive nature. Over a thousand known types of plants and animals have already gone extinct because of us, and the number is growing.
and since humen are what biologists call an "Exterminator Species" then what do they worth if they originite from dirt as they claim, the less humen who destroy other being are in this earth the better, if the evlution is true that is, but since they were actaully created by god, then there is a reason for them to be around
@DevilRaptorB People tend to make stupid, near-sighted descisions for their own short-term benifit. That's what causes most environmental destruction.
But that's beside the point. REMEMBER: Evolution does NOT explain where life originally came from. Theories of abiogenesis are often paired with evolution, but are not part of the same theory. Indeed, even if evolution occurs, that does not effect the idea of a God creating the first life. It just means that that life has adapted and changed.
this last comment proves that you don't know the main idea of evolution , which state that Life never needed a god caz it existed in its own, and god doesn't need evulotion , my advice for you is to search deeper into this matter and start by searching the origin of the idea itself
@DevilRaptorB You are confusing yourself. The theory of evolution NEVER states where life originated, or why it exists. As I mentioned before, it is often paired with theories of abiogenesis, but evolution itself doesn't explain life's origins.
Now, your unfathomable ignorance is REALLY starting to annoy me, so I'm probably just going to ignore you until you can actually make a valid argument. Okay? Thanks.
and that last comment proves to me that you know nothing of what your talking about, indeed we should stop this argument since its clear to me that you know nothing about the base of the idea of evulotion , do yourself a faver and be honest with yourself for just this once and don't reply for real
@DevilRaptorB Now really, I don't know what you THINK the origin of evolution is, but I'm guessing it's probably some of that BS religious propoganda. You know, "Evolution is a lie that sinners hide behind so that they aren't accountable for what they do, because they think they came from monkeys!"... Am I on the right track? Or is it: "Evolution is a global conspiracy of Satan worshippers!" I've heard it all before. They're both flawed ideas, and highly paradoxical, but whatever.
@DevilRaptorB ...And the claims aren't invalid just because they change. I mean, that's what science is all about. Current theories often change when we discover new things that increase our understanding of what's being studied.
@DevilRaptorB Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. We don't know yet. I think that's what life is all about. Being curious, figuring out the workings of the world around us. Learning, making new discoveries, expanding our minds and bettering ourselves for the future.
again with the maybe, the evolution was long since have never been proven true , wana ignore resnable evidence , feel free to do it , caz in my brain, using dead example is no Science, its just a belife that you decided to eccept
@DevilRaptorB Again, not true. Micro-evolution is proven fact. We know for a fact that organisms, within just a few generations, will make slight adaptations to deal with new conditions. One good example of micro-evolution is the way viruses evolve and mutate to overcome a previously effective cure. Another example is feral boars, which are in fact different animals than the domestic pigs from which they decended.
@DevilRaptorB Yes, pterosaurs existed before Archaeopteryx, and appeared at around the same time as the first dinosaurs. No, pterosaurs are not birds, they are reptiles.
I'm ignoring your class room suggestions because I think its a passive form of child abuse to teach them lies.
I have given you the original paper about the t-rex "blood", and challenged you on your claim that all transitional fossils are fake. Since your unwilling to change your assertion that blood was found in a t-rex, when the undeniable facts say they didn't. I conclude your knowing asserting an untruth. Good luck with the lord, hope he wasn't serious about the 9th commandment
@Craigmw45 You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
@Craigmw45 Well, you ignored my classroom suggestions by providing lame excuses so I have concluded my part. I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. Psalm 104:33
"Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone" -- Schweitzer, et al
As one last example, thats the paper about the "t-rex blood cells." Except she makes no mention of actually finding red blood cells in it at all. So why are you proposing that we teach children that she had?
@Craigmw45 You wouldn't dare to introduce both sides of the transitional fossil issue in a classroom, as questions would soon arise as to the validity of your position. So, the soft tissue is also off limits to students as you are willing to withhold interesting information from them. Once again you have demonstrated why evolutionists run and hide from debates.
@BereanBeacon1 Wait a minute. I'm not making the claim that all transitional fossils are fake. Why in the world would we ever want to teach such a bold claim if the ones making it are not prepared to show it to be true?
You can simply make claims, assert them to be true, and then claim bias when someone says its silly to teach that with out some sort of corroborating evidence.
So are the fossils from the genus homo, all frauds or are you prepared to accept them as genuine, and edit your movie
@Craigmw45 Just keep producing brain dead zombies. Anyway, if you are alive during the great tribulation, don't take the mark of the beast or worship him as he will be an evolutionist.
@Craigmw45 Bacon is a fuck-knuckle, mate. He doesn't really understand evolution, he just feeds off the poor reasoning of his creation moments friends. The loser is trying to avoid me at the moment, infact.
He's a joke, and half of his comments posted to you, i have seen before.
He's a good example of the fundamentalist's dwindling penchant for critical thinking. Not to mention his small minded, god fearing, spiritual poverty.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1John 5:13
@BereanBeacon1 BTW, what does this quote have to do with you? You aren't passing down the word of god, you are passing down the word of your 'creation moments' master....Brainwashed
At 1:30 the video claims that all tranistional fossils have shown to be a fake. What are the explanations for the thousands of fossils belonging to the genus homo, which show such a clear linear progression that the line between species is hard to define.
And isn't it ironic that the tail from this fraud belonged to microraptor which is a much more significant find. And no one claims this is a fraudulent species either.
cont. . On this specific case, only two paleontologists actually believed the fossil was genuine; when it was examined experts across the world denounced it as fradulent (notice that this was in National Geographic, not a scientific journal). So go read a book and learn about evolution instead of taking info from these muppets!
Why should any fossil fraud embarass scientists? Fossils are not needed to prove evolution, they are frankly a bonus we are lucky to have. Plus, the bonus of science compared to religious dogma is that it is self-correcting, unlike religious dogma (creationism), it can see where it has gone wrong and corrects it in due course. Furthermore, you are quick to forget the mountains of other completely genuine fossils; this is your logic: you find one broken watch and then assume that all the other...
@TheGamanic The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Pslam 14:1-3
@BereanBeacon1 Nice to know you debunked all my claims. Just goes to show that creation has not got a leg to stand on. But anyway, evolution doesn't equal atheism, even a "fool" can see that. Hence why the Pope, members of the clergy, the vast majority of theologicians who have actually studied evolution and basically anyone with a sound, thinking mind accepts it as fact, as do 99.8% of scientists, both atheists, Christians, Jews etc.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15 Which are you on?
@BereanBeacon1 I don't think you know what you are talking about champ. Learning the real world for what it actually is, through science, will not send me to hell. However, under your guidence (assuming people would actually listen to you) the world would be back into the medival dark ages.
@HumanTargetAus You are confusing true Christians with the religious "Christians". Bible believers don't kill others we disagree with. As for what we believe we preach it as you preach your godless religion.
@BereanBeacon1 Sadly you so easily confuse religion with science...And no, i am quite informed as to what a true christian is seeing as i was educated within a christian brothers institution. And may i tell you, even the most religious of them (more so than yourself) didn't once attempt to misguide us, as you shamefully attempt.
There is reason in religion, but not your beliefs.
@BereanBeacon1 dude that's such a dumb statement, i could pose the same question to you? Judging from your track record of distinguishing real from fake, I'd expect you to be wrong in your self evaluation.
@HumanTargetAus I looked up Ian Taylor, and the 'Creation Moments' crowd and found that they have no affiliation with christian brothers, or any credible christian community. So wouldn't that suggest that, you and your lying friends are not the true Christians? Your pending objection is obvious, since your whole life lies behind this fallacy. Somehow i know that you know better, but just aren't willing to admit it.
@HumanTargetAus Down through history when the Bible is believed by a group of people there is peace and prosperity such as occurred in Europe, then the religious (Rome) would torture and burn alive those true Christians. Then the darkness spread as those who hate God and the Bible cannot tolerate the peace that passes all understanding that comes by salvation. So true Christians left Europe formed America and the darkness followed.
@BereanBeacon1 What about the countless witch burnings and the rivers of blood spilled in the name of god? Selective reasoning only makes you look stupid, especially when it's so easily seen that you are lying to yourself. The fact is, your dark age mythology (i am not attacking religion, i am referring to your bogus scientific explanations) is the vista of ignorance and stupidity, particularly when such incredible science is acessible at your finger tips.
I haven't heard about this incident, but let's agree that it's true. How does that disprove evolution? All you're doing is showing that science is trustworthy because errors and frauds are eventually discovered. And Archaeoraptor is not the only proposed species linking therapods and birds. There are several now.
Summary: "Someone made a mistake, so evolution is wrong." Beyond that, the assertion that all transitional fossils have been shown to be fakes is an outright lie and entirely nonsensical, as "transitional" is not a distinct type of fossil. More importantly, the fact that this was a fake was discovered by applying science. The process of science is self-correcting and this video unintentionally demonstrates exactly why it is the best tool we have for understanding the universe.
@PashaAntipov We find real science very interesting, not your science fiction. If this is true, "science is self-correcting", then evolution would be gone as it cannot be proven in a court of law.
@BereanBeacon1 Where would the case for evolution fail? Exactly what are the weaknesses that would cause a judge or jury to reject the case? I'm curious here.
@BereanBeacon1 Here is advice from a well know evolutionist not to debate. Just search, EUGENIE C. SCOTT: Debate and Lose Critique. Her reasons not to debate are very weak and demonstrate that past debates were lost and so they would have to avoid a court room at all costs.
The belief aspect of evolution contributes nothing to real observational science. Molecules to man evolution [evolutionism] doesn’t help an engineer build anything, help a medical Dr. in any way, or help a biologist understand the physiology of a plant. Evolutionism’s beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with ANY of our technology. It does nothing for observational science except waste time, money, & actually detracts from real scientific research. Real scientists have better things to do.
Creationists are only interested in misrepresenting and denying science. The "Life Science Prize" is a fraud. You want scientists to bet $10 000 that they can convince a creationist of evolution, when the creationist has already said that no evidence will persuade him? Are you out of your mind?
@puffin02 You must be a flawed product of a public school, as you either cannot read or you are misrepresenting the guide lines of the Prize purposely. Please go to the page and read it for the first time. Otherwise, cluck.
@BereanBeacon1 Let's say you contracted a rare and deadly infection and there are only two medications which could possibly cure it. They completely counteract each other if you take both.
1: Has been developed by a team of epidemiologists and submitted to a wide array of epidemiologists for further testing.
2: Has been developed by a kinesiologist and submitted only to the local circuit court judge for approval.
The fossil was a forgery. Who exposed the fraud? Scientists. What scientific journal published papers on the forgery? Why, none. How many actual scientists believed it? Two - and only at first, because a clever forgery took them in. When a group of experts looked carefully at it - as soon as it was available - it was exposed.
Does this mean there are no feathered dinosaurs? No. There are a dozen real fossils. And microraptors are still the ancestors of birds.
@puffin02 Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
@BereanBeacon1 Which part of 'science is not done in a courtroom' are you having a problem grasping?
Are you ever going to challenge creationists to present their evidence for legitimate peer review or are you only going to continue to make your completely unscientific challenge in your wholly unscientific arena?
@puffin02 Why do creationists need to lie? Because between that and quote-mining, it's the only tactics they have. They have no data on their side, they have no evidence on their side. Lies and misdirection are all which remain. As for the 'life science prize' malarky. A courtroom is not the place where science lives; that's for law. Fundamental inability to comprehend even that is why nobody takes it seriously enough to want to even humour it.
Fraudulent claims in science do not 'embarass scientists.' Unlike religion, when a fraudster is uncovered in the scientific realm, their scientific careers are over, period. Science is self-regulating, and scientists are brutal to one another. You just have to look at the fraud surrounding cold fusion to see that; nobody who perpetrates scientific fraud will be allowed to work in the scientific community again. Unlike in religion, where being imprisoned seems to make one more popular.
@pyrespirit Very scientific. Next time try being informative instead of just opinionated with your Alice in Wonderland defense of the indefensible as an excuse to speciously attack religion.
@Bereitwilligkeit Way to actually say absolutely nothing. Science is founded on evidence, on data. If something is supported by data, it is accepted. If it is unsupported or contravened by data, it is discarded. Religion is founded on the notion of 'believe us, or else. We have nothing besides our promise that it's true, but it's true! Honest!' You need to look up specious; it implies deception. Deception is antithetical to science, but required for religion.
@pyrespirit We cannot hold any meaningful dialogue as long as you persist in equating your doctrinal ideology with scientific evolution. To start with, understand I am not critical of real and provable evolution as defined by speciation, or: “when a population has evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.
I accept the reality of mutations and natural selection, but contend that they are incapable of creating any of the vast amounts of novel genetic information required for the voodoo science of doctrinal goo-2-you evolution as everything must have a sufficient cause.
TO PUT IT VERY SIMPLY:
Intelligence arises from an intelligent source. OR
Intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.
@Bereitwilligkeit Why would I care that you're unable to 'hold meaningful dialogue'? You actually have to have some basis to stand on before meaningful dialogue is appropriate; and your continued flawed assertations just show you're inherently incapable of 'meaningful dialogue' on scientific subjects. This is most especially evidenced by the ridiculous buzzwords, notably 'evolutionism' and 'goo-2-you,' both of which are very clear indications of a person who lacks grasp of sufficient materials
@pyrespirit Awwww! Did I hurt your itty-bitty feelings by referring to your religion of doctrinal evolution as goo-2-u evolutionism? I'll not lie and say I'm sorry, as I'm simply showing the same kind of respect that you have shown for competing religion with your bloviating: "Unlike in religion, where being imprisoned seems to make one more popular," and like comments. They are both religions. One secular, one spiritual. One based on consensus science, one based on Gods word.
@Bereitwilligkeit Once again, the lack of understanding is apparant. 'Feelings' have nothing to do with it; and the fact that you decide to home in on that to try and distract ffrom having no real argument is, again, telling. As is trying to argue anything about science is 'religious.' Your 'arguments' are as ridiculous as they are false, but your willingness to spout deceit is exactly why the statement on the nature of religion thriving with deceit are correct.
@pyrespirit You did a nice job of avoiding any response to the fact that the mechanisms underlying microevolution cannot be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.
Which of course leaves goo-2-u evolution without a leg to stand on. Like bacteria. All bacteria can change. But they remain bacteria. There is zero proof that they ever have been or ever will be anything but bacteria. One does not have to go back billions of years to know that.
@Bereitwilligkeit I don't need to respond to that because it's a ludicrous non-point. There is no 'micro-evolution' or 'macro-evolution.' There is evolution. Whether it's examined over short term or long term. There are plenty of data regarding the possible methods for single cell organisms to evolve into multi-cell; any symbiotic colony existing today shows a possible intermediary step. There is nothing -but- proof all around, which is why the theory is accepted by anybody with any knowledge.
major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. [mechanisms underlying microevolution have never been extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution, which-makes it a bogus claim until such time that it is.] You can stamp your feet and scream that evolutionism is true all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the only “science” built on faith.
It begins with abiogenesis, the faith that dead things can EVOLVE and come to life as replicating organisms. NOTHING DEAD CAN EVOLVE AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT IT CAN - THAT’S FAITH! Without abiogenesis, evolutionism is without foundation, end of story.
@Bereitwilligkeit Buwwaaaahahahahahahah the same thing has been going on for one hundred years with these phony fossils and "missing links." Evolution never happened, thus there are no such fossils. In their zeal to support their religion, evolution followers have introduced numerous frauds.
@Bereitwilligkeit In your mind, what would constitute proof that a population of bacteria evolved into something that wasn't bacteria? In other words, what evidence would change your mind?
@Vincentaneous It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything--or at least they are not science
All bacteria can change. But they stay bacteria. There is no proof that they ever have been, or ever will be anything but bacteria. One does not have to go back billions of years to know that. One can BELIEVE that they changed billions of years ago, but that would be based on faith, not on any data, or evidence. Just speculations, and non sequitur’s with ad hoc explanations.
Besides, why would it be a ONE TIME DEAL billions of years ago? Are there not innumerable new bacteria replicating every day? Surely, they should be able to find many examples of bacteria morphing as we speak? “It happens over billions of years” only serves to demand trillions of examples. Where are they?
@Vincentaneous You just said that "statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything - or at least they are not science". God cannot be "checked by observation".
@pyrespirit Evolutionists routinely apply proofs for biological evolution to doctrinal evolution, deliberately blurring the divergence that SHOULD APPROPRIATELY SEPARATE the two. This doctrinal evolution is built on the purposive posits of atheists claiming that macro & micro evolution are the same. Like insisting that lighting enough matches will eventually culminate in an atomic explosion. this has never been proven, but is claimed nonetheless.
(cont) The most recent serious address to this question that I can locate is from 1980. “The central question of the Nov 21st, 1980 Chicago conference “Evolutionary theory under fire” was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear no.” Robert Lewiston’s report in Science, vol 210, p 883
Btw, I chose the word specious in full knowledge that it implies deception. Deception is antithetical to science, but required for the religion known as evolutionism that hides behind name of science.
@stickinup2188 Yes! It's a scientific theory, which is the highest level of acceptance that science can have. Only creationists of various religions refute it as it goes against their belief!
Not believing in evolution is the same as not believing in gravity or relativity.
@stickinup2188 Despite consensus science that evolutionism is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. I have no quarrel with speciation, only with Goo-2-u doctrinal evolutionism, which is built on faith and assumptions. For instance, no one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Evolutionists ASSUME that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so.
Unless repeatable, testability doesn’t apply to evolution “science” It’s up to evolutionuts to PROVE microevolution is long term macroevolution, while not forgetting to factor in the disintegration, entropy, and natural decomposition of the various materials over millions/billions of years
“I would remind you that where the claim of consensus is invoked, consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
@Bereitwilligkeit Scientists aren't 'great precisely because they broke with the consensus.' Breaking with consensus has absolutely nothing to do with it; consensus is irrelevant. Data is the only relevance. The greatest scientists discovered and analyzed data in ways which made sense of the data. Consensus or lack thereof is completely irrelevant when compared to empirical data.
@Bereitwilligkeit "it really is no more than an improbable story." Nice try. It's a solid and well-supported theory in which every single datum discovered to date fits within the model, and not a single datum has contravened. It has required modifcation to fit with a growing understanding; but requiring modification is only a weakness when it's applied to something supposedly immutable; which no scientific theory is.
Furthermore, there are hundreds of transitional fossils known to science. Dozens of which belong to hominins.
One more thing, the tail of this fake fossil was later determined to belong to microraptor, which is another breath-taking example of a transitional fossil (one between birds and dinosaurs). Just a funny irony in the history of fossil hunting.
Furthermore, National Geographic is not a scientific journal. It is a popular science magazine. Only a few scientists believed the fossil to be legitimate, but when it was presented to other scientists they showed why it was a fake. Claiming that this fossil proves the paleontological community wrong because National Geographic published an article about it is like saying physics was shown to be wrong because the popular press published an article stating that cold fusion was possible.
1:26. That is simply a lie. I mean, the most famous transitional fossil in the world is archaeopteryx and it is a transition from dinosaur to bird. Moreover, the ~seven specimens of archaeopteryx have withstood the test of time.
This is a fine example of the logic, or lack thereof, that is the hallmark of Creationism. Their attempts to portray science as another religion are as dogged as their adherance to bronze age myths. Yes, scientists make mistakes. The difference between science and a pseudoscience like Creationism is that real scientists admit their error. When a scientist is proven wrong they are happy that knowledge has been advanced. When Creationists screw up and are called out its just lies and coverups.
Youre repeating lies youve been told. The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Its a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy & ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may. There are numerous paradigm some disproven since the 1800s that are still in todays science texts.
"a paradigm...is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it."
Yes and no. A theory isnt discarded simply because a new one comes along. If a new theory better explains natural phenomena then over time it becomes the accepted theory. Plate tectonics superceding continental drift comes to mind.
"numerous paradigm some disproven since the 1800s...still in science texts"
We still have those goofy Haeckel drawings in 2004 textbooks for crying out loud. They are still teaching there are vestigial organs, science books (so called) are still teaching human fetuses have tails and gills.
Neodarwinists are nothing like scientists, they never EVER give up.
Haeckels drawings being found in textbooks is an example of a problem with text book publishers, not science. You will never see a reference to Haeckels drawings in any scientific journal.
Furthermore, there are vestigial organs (by its proper definition and by the straw man creationists use). Furthermore, human fetuses do have tails, and I have not seen one textbook that states human fetuses have gills.
@jebus6kryst SIGH! Thats still no tail, its the tailbone(coccyx). While its true, the end of the spine sticks out noticeably in a one-month embryo, but thats because muscles and limbs dont develop until stimulated by the spine. As the legs develop, they surround & envelop the coccyx, & it winds up inside the body. Developed, it has 9 muscles attached to it. While the coccyx CAN be removed, its major surgery. Not like cutting off a tail. Man simply has not got the DNA to develop a tail.
Add to that : the geologic column, the paradigm of leftover DNA from evolution that has been holding back biological and medical research for many years.
The geological column? You mean the same geologic column that was discovered before Darwin proposed his ideas of natural and sexual selection? The paradigm of left over DNA? Would you please cite a source for this claim. And for the claim that evolution is holding back biological and medical science.
First off, you seemed to have omitted some basics about human development in your self-contradictory first statement. In the first month of development, normal human embryos contain 10-12 developing tail vertebrae (Fallon and Simandl 1978; Moore and Persaud 1998; and Nievelstein et al. 1993). However, by the end of the second month, the last six vertebrae are reabsorbed and the fourth and fifth vertebrae start to reabsorb (Fallon and Simandl 1978; and Nievelstein et al. 1993).
@jebus6kryst That is a blatant misrepresentation. The coccyx is hardly reabsorbed, the buttocks simply are not developed this early in the child's development.
Please cite some evidence for this claim. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You see, I have provided you with the sources for the claims I have made. You are able to track them yourself. Simply because it does not fit into your preconceived notion does not mean it is wrong.
@jebus6kryst Good grief! MY preconceived notion? You're a fine one to talk about preconceived notions. Check with ANY pediatrician or google embryonic stages yourself.
Oh yes, Google, the source for all scientific information.
I have already cited sources for you from peer-reviewed journals. Simply because you believe that they are wrong does not mean they are wrong. You need to provide the sources that show that what I said was wrong.
Again, simply because this does not fit into your preconceived notion, does not mean it is wrong. It means your preconceived notion is wrong. Now please, provide sources to show that I am wrong or please admit that you are wrong
Atheist reviewed? What makes them atheistic? I really want you to answer this question for me. You are aware that most scientists in the U.S. are religious.
You did cite Google as one of your sources. I think the Mickey Mouse Club might be a step up from that. Furthermore, I am still waiting for you to cite anything that shows that I am wrong.
Second, it seems that your claim about humans not having the DNA to develop a tail is simply wrong. According to Dao and Netsky 1984; Hall 1984; and Hall 1995 the DNA for creating a tail is in the human genome. Furthermore, these are true tails with mussels and vertebras (Belzberg et al. 1991; Dao and Netsky 1984; and Grange et al. 2001) which in some cases can move (Baruchin et al. 1983; and Dao and Netsky 1984), not just pseudo-tails (Dao and Netsky 1984; and Dubrow et al. 1988).
there was an article in New scientist with the chinese scientist Xu Xing who has now named over thirty different dinosaurs and specialise in feathered raptors. one of them they have found over 1000 skeletons off which just shows what lies this article is.
Oh wow.This is the spontaneous nasal combustion guy.Check out potholer vid it's hilarious.
suzukix5owner 5 days ago
Basically this video demonstrates the honesty of evolutionary scientists. The narrator even admits it was unearthed by non scientists & it was not until evolutionary (not creationists) scientists got their hands on it (as with Piltdown man) that they exposed it as a fake. How can you claim this is the case with all transitionals?
Now if you want fake designed to intentionally to fool people then when you going to do a video on the Ica stones, Paluxy footprints and the "discovery" of the Ark?
pilgrimpater 1 week ago
"they admitted" - how that can be turned unto "evolution is a faith" is really weird.
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
It was not just a tail, the lower half of the fossil was a Microraptor. Scientists now have over 20 different dinosaurs with feathers. So stop lying.
gregrutz 2 months ago
I think I found the stupidest channel on YouTube.
fdasherv 3 months ago 4
So someone thought they could pass off a fraud in order to gain credibility but in the end were caught red handed.
How does this in any way refute the rest of the fossil record, the comparative animal physiology, and the genetic code?
It doesn't. What you're doing is called "slander".
saiyanmage 3 months ago
Yeah, we found the missing link a long time ago. Ever heard of Archaeopteryx? And since, many, many feathered dinosaurs and primative birds have been found.
This case is a fraud, yes. But these people are LYING by saying that this was the missing link, because there is nothing missing. We've found many, many transitional species between dinosaurs and birds.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 6 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
nothing ever proved that these dinosaurs had feathers , and please, Archaeopteryx? it was proven that there are birds older then Archaeopteryx, and Raptors along with trex were younger then Archaeopteryx , the oldest bird were shown to be older then the oldest theropod , so yaa, there is no missing Link, get your facts right before given us the Archaeopteryx bullcrap
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB You're the only one here who's full of bullcrap, good sir.
1. We know some dinosaurs had feathers because of the inprintations left behind around the skelotons. That's also how we know that many had scaly skin.
2. There were no birds before Archaeopteryx. I don't know where you heard that there were, but it's not true.
3. Archaeopteryx lived during the Jurassic, 150 mya. Dromaeosaurs(Raptors) did not appear until the early cretaceous, 125 mya. And Tyrannosaurids not until 84 mya
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
1- so a dead animal can tell more then a living one? all feathred dinosaurs have been shown to not really have them
2-google "oldest bird" and lets see who would laugh after
3- you ether suck at Meth or u never finished school , how is 150 mya not older then 125 mya that proves if arch is evloved from raptors to birds then why is he older then the raptors?
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB
1. Your claim "All feathered dinosaurs have been shown to not have them really have them" Is not true. We KNOW that raptors, some ornithomids and coelurosaurs, and possibly the therizinosaurs all had feathers. The evidence, again, comes from feather inprintations outlining the skeletons.
Oh and PARDON me, so xiaotingia zhengi is a bit older than archaeopteryx. So what?
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
and archaeopteryx is older then theropods which proves that birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs unless their welling to say that arch and zhengi are younger then they claim it to be
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB Ugh. No it's not. Archaeopteryx and and xiaotingia zhengi lived durring the middle-late Jurassic, and actually lived alongside large, highly evolved theropods like Ceratosaurus and Allosaurus. In fact, theropods were actually some of the first saurichian dinosaurs. Primative theropods like Coelophysoids had already been around during the Triassic, 230 million years ago - 75 million years BEFORE xiaotingia.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB And no, I do not suck at meth, how could I? (I don't do drugs, thank you very much) I don't have any problems with math, either. But no, I haven't finished school YET, as I am only 14 years old. My math is not bad, you just don't know what you're talking about. Archaeopteryx originally evolved from some kind of coelurosaur, NOT raptors (Although they are probably related).
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
I know what im talking about caz I did my own reaserch, sorry to dispoint you, but what they tought you at school about eveluation is nothing but theroies , nothing that they are 100% sure of
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB I didn't learn any of that in school. I do my own research as well. REMEMBER: In the scientific community, even theories are always backed by some ammount of facts and evidence, otherwise they are not accepted to be valid claims.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV first they said that all dinosaurs evolved to birds, then they said that birds evolved just from theropods , then they say they evolved from one other reptile , so its an endless chine of theries with nothing that have proven right , so no, there are no so called valid claim , only unvaild ones
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB It was never believed that all dinosaurs evolved into birds. That's just some nonsense implied by dialogue from Jurassic Park, "Do you really think that the dinosaurs turned into birds, and that's where they all went?", needless to say, Hollywood has never been scientifically accurate with much of anything. As for the idea that birds came from other reptiles (Dinosaurs technically weren't reptiles though) I've never heard that, and I think it's probably just more of your BS.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
more of my BS ? go ask anyone if dinosaurs are reptiles or not , if they believe in evolution they well tell u that that they are reptiles that birds evolve from, and if they don't their just tell you that their just reptiles , you don't have to take what I say as a fact , believe what you wana believe then
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB Well I'm just trying to point out that most of your claims aren't even true.
Now yes, officially, all dinosaurs are classified under Reptilia. But in reality, dinosaurs don't actually fit into any animal class. They had most of the defining characteristics of reptiles, but were warm-blooded. Plus, many small theropods were also hollow-boned and had feathers, both of which are very bird-like traits.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB Most of the debate within this issue centers around the concept of macro-evolution. The idea of one species giving rise to the next, of entirely new species evolving from the old ones. This isn't really so much a fact yet as it is a well-supported theory. Most of the evidence comes from the fossil record, yes, but there is quite a bit seen in organisms today as well. One auxh example is the hip structures found in the tails of whales and dolphins.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB LOL auxh?! Sorry, that was supposed to say "Such". Biggest typo fail ever on my part!
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
well, even the small dinosaurs are classified as reptilia , so it make no sence, if you wana believe they evolved then fine by me, as for me , I can never believe evolution caz I know its not true, if its true then we humen should just dissapper caz were just crap if evelotion is true
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB How does evolution make anything considered "Crap"....? If evolution is true, then that would make even the tiniest living things HUGE accomplishments of nature. The concept really is quite beautiful if you think about it.
However, human beings are what biologists call an "Exterminator Species". This is purly because of our destructive nature. Over a thousand known types of plants and animals have already gone extinct because of us, and the number is growing.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
and since humen are what biologists call an "Exterminator Species" then what do they worth if they originite from dirt as they claim, the less humen who destroy other being are in this earth the better, if the evlution is true that is, but since they were actaully created by god, then there is a reason for them to be around
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB People tend to make stupid, near-sighted descisions for their own short-term benifit. That's what causes most environmental destruction.
But that's beside the point. REMEMBER: Evolution does NOT explain where life originally came from. Theories of abiogenesis are often paired with evolution, but are not part of the same theory. Indeed, even if evolution occurs, that does not effect the idea of a God creating the first life. It just means that that life has adapted and changed.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
this last comment proves that you don't know the main idea of evolution , which state that Life never needed a god caz it existed in its own, and god doesn't need evulotion , my advice for you is to search deeper into this matter and start by searching the origin of the idea itself
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB You are confusing yourself. The theory of evolution NEVER states where life originated, or why it exists. As I mentioned before, it is often paired with theories of abiogenesis, but evolution itself doesn't explain life's origins.
Now, your unfathomable ignorance is REALLY starting to annoy me, so I'm probably just going to ignore you until you can actually make a valid argument. Okay? Thanks.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
and that last comment proves to me that you know nothing of what your talking about, indeed we should stop this argument since its clear to me that you know nothing about the base of the idea of evulotion , do yourself a faver and be honest with yourself for just this once and don't reply for real
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DevilRaptorB I know EXACTLY how evolution works.
Here, watch these videos:
h t t p:// w w w (DOT)youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro&feature=channel_video_title
h t t p :// w w w (DOT)youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel_video_title
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB Now really, I don't know what you THINK the origin of evolution is, but I'm guessing it's probably some of that BS religious propoganda. You know, "Evolution is a lie that sinners hide behind so that they aren't accountable for what they do, because they think they came from monkeys!"... Am I on the right track? Or is it: "Evolution is a global conspiracy of Satan worshippers!" I've heard it all before. They're both flawed ideas, and highly paradoxical, but whatever.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago 2
@DevilRaptorB ...And the claims aren't invalid just because they change. I mean, that's what science is all about. Current theories often change when we discover new things that increase our understanding of what's being studied.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
and im looking forward to the day when they find out how wrong they were about dino-bird evolution went
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. We don't know yet. I think that's what life is all about. Being curious, figuring out the workings of the world around us. Learning, making new discoveries, expanding our minds and bettering ourselves for the future.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@KyleAndDougsRandomTV
again with the maybe, the evolution was long since have never been proven true , wana ignore resnable evidence , feel free to do it , caz in my brain, using dead example is no Science, its just a belife that you decided to eccept
DevilRaptorB 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB Again, not true. Micro-evolution is proven fact. We know for a fact that organisms, within just a few generations, will make slight adaptations to deal with new conditions. One good example of micro-evolution is the way viruses evolve and mutate to overcome a previously effective cure. Another example is feral boars, which are in fact different animals than the domestic pigs from which they decended.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
@DevilRaptorB Yes, pterosaurs existed before Archaeopteryx, and appeared at around the same time as the first dinosaurs. No, pterosaurs are not birds, they are reptiles.
KyleAndDougsRandomTV 5 months ago
There is no such thing as God's Truth.
WeishaChiu 7 months ago
I'm ignoring your class room suggestions because I think its a passive form of child abuse to teach them lies.
I have given you the original paper about the t-rex "blood", and challenged you on your claim that all transitional fossils are fake. Since your unwilling to change your assertion that blood was found in a t-rex, when the undeniable facts say they didn't. I conclude your knowing asserting an untruth. Good luck with the lord, hope he wasn't serious about the 9th commandment
Craigmw45 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Craigmw45 You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 This isn't misunderstanding God's creation, or the simple things confounding the wise.
This unequivocally misrepresenting someones own words, bearing false witness under even the most strict of definitions.
Craigmw45 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 ahahaha, where have i seen this before?
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
Is that the best response you can come up with? Completely ignoring any and all criticisms and asserting that Satan will be an evolutionist?
Craigmw45 9 months ago
@Craigmw45 Well, you ignored my classroom suggestions by providing lame excuses so I have concluded my part. I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. Psalm 104:33
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
"Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone" -- Schweitzer, et al
As one last example, thats the paper about the "t-rex blood cells." Except she makes no mention of actually finding red blood cells in it at all. So why are you proposing that we teach children that she had?
Craigmw45 9 months ago
How about start correcting your videos which claim out right lies like, every transitional fossil has been shown to be a fraud?
Craigmw45 9 months ago
@Craigmw45 How about discussing that subject in a classroom?
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 I feel like I'm falling for a troll here.
But please tell me why you think a classroom is a place to present ideas that have been shown to be false under critical observation?
Craigmw45 9 months ago
@Craigmw45 You wouldn't dare to introduce both sides of the transitional fossil issue in a classroom, as questions would soon arise as to the validity of your position. So, the soft tissue is also off limits to students as you are willing to withhold interesting information from them. Once again you have demonstrated why evolutionists run and hide from debates.
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Wait a minute. I'm not making the claim that all transitional fossils are fake. Why in the world would we ever want to teach such a bold claim if the ones making it are not prepared to show it to be true?
You can simply make claims, assert them to be true, and then claim bias when someone says its silly to teach that with out some sort of corroborating evidence.
So are the fossils from the genus homo, all frauds or are you prepared to accept them as genuine, and edit your movie
Craigmw45 9 months ago
@Craigmw45 Just keep producing brain dead zombies. Anyway, if you are alive during the great tribulation, don't take the mark of the beast or worship him as he will be an evolutionist.
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@Craigmw45 Bacon is a fuck-knuckle, mate. He doesn't really understand evolution, he just feeds off the poor reasoning of his creation moments friends. The loser is trying to avoid me at the moment, infact.
He's a joke, and half of his comments posted to you, i have seen before.
He's a good example of the fundamentalist's dwindling penchant for critical thinking. Not to mention his small minded, god fearing, spiritual poverty.
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 You better try and avoid any scientific confrontation with me, hey bacon? Looks like your will is just as small as your brain afterall
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HumanTargetAus Thank you again.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1John 5:13
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 that's right cunt
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 BTW, what does this quote have to do with you? You aren't passing down the word of god, you are passing down the word of your 'creation moments' master....Brainwashed
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
At 1:30 the video claims that all tranistional fossils have shown to be a fake. What are the explanations for the thousands of fossils belonging to the genus homo, which show such a clear linear progression that the line between species is hard to define.
And isn't it ironic that the tail from this fraud belonged to microraptor which is a much more significant find. And no one claims this is a fraudulent species either.
Craigmw45 9 months ago
@Craigmw45 How about these discoveries being discussed in a class room, of course with neutral titles?
Green River Formation Fossil Has Original Soft Tissue
Ancient Dinosaur Blood (68,000,000 Years)
Fossil Fraud Embarrasses Scientists
Scientist Draws With Extinct Squid Ink
AMBER EXPOSES EVOLUTION
Evolution: The Itsy-Bitsy Spider
Fantastic Australian Amber Supports Young World
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
cont. . On this specific case, only two paleontologists actually believed the fossil was genuine; when it was examined experts across the world denounced it as fradulent (notice that this was in National Geographic, not a scientific journal). So go read a book and learn about evolution instead of taking info from these muppets!
TheGamanic 9 months ago
Why should any fossil fraud embarass scientists? Fossils are not needed to prove evolution, they are frankly a bonus we are lucky to have. Plus, the bonus of science compared to religious dogma is that it is self-correcting, unlike religious dogma (creationism), it can see where it has gone wrong and corrects it in due course. Furthermore, you are quick to forget the mountains of other completely genuine fossils; this is your logic: you find one broken watch and then assume that all the other...
TheGamanic 9 months ago
@TheGamanic The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Pslam 14:1-3
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Nice to know you debunked all my claims. Just goes to show that creation has not got a leg to stand on. But anyway, evolution doesn't equal atheism, even a "fool" can see that. Hence why the Pope, members of the clergy, the vast majority of theologicians who have actually studied evolution and basically anyone with a sound, thinking mind accepts it as fact, as do 99.8% of scientists, both atheists, Christians, Jews etc.
TheGamanic 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGamanic Who are the many? Who are few?
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15 Which are you on?
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Lol, your a fuckhead mate. Your coments keep getting all the more entertaining
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
@HumanTargetAus Just tiring to save your soul so you won't know hell too late.
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 I don't think you know what you are talking about champ. Learning the real world for what it actually is, through science, will not send me to hell. However, under your guidence (assuming people would actually listen to you) the world would be back into the medival dark ages.
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
@HumanTargetAus You are confusing true Christians with the religious "Christians". Bible believers don't kill others we disagree with. As for what we believe we preach it as you preach your godless religion.
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 "No True Scotsman" Fallacy Alert!
TheGamanic 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Sadly you so easily confuse religion with science...And no, i am quite informed as to what a true christian is seeing as i was educated within a christian brothers institution. And may i tell you, even the most religious of them (more so than yourself) didn't once attempt to misguide us, as you shamefully attempt.
There is reason in religion, but not your beliefs.
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
@HumanTargetAus "christian brothers institution". How do you that they were true Christians?
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 dude that's such a dumb statement, i could pose the same question to you? Judging from your track record of distinguishing real from fake, I'd expect you to be wrong in your self evaluation.
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
@HumanTargetAus I looked up Ian Taylor, and the 'Creation Moments' crowd and found that they have no affiliation with christian brothers, or any credible christian community. So wouldn't that suggest that, you and your lying friends are not the true Christians? Your pending objection is obvious, since your whole life lies behind this fallacy. Somehow i know that you know better, but just aren't willing to admit it.
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
@HumanTargetAus Down through history when the Bible is believed by a group of people there is peace and prosperity such as occurred in Europe, then the religious (Rome) would torture and burn alive those true Christians. Then the darkness spread as those who hate God and the Bible cannot tolerate the peace that passes all understanding that comes by salvation. So true Christians left Europe formed America and the darkness followed.
BereanBeacon1 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 What about the countless witch burnings and the rivers of blood spilled in the name of god? Selective reasoning only makes you look stupid, especially when it's so easily seen that you are lying to yourself. The fact is, your dark age mythology (i am not attacking religion, i am referring to your bogus scientific explanations) is the vista of ignorance and stupidity, particularly when such incredible science is acessible at your finger tips.
HumanTargetAus 9 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 The fool hath said in his fart, phbbbbbbbbbbbt.
ceddan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chalk another evo-urban myth to the secular fraud laundry list. Dino-birds ...bahahahahahaaaaaaa. Great post.
sownzgr8 10 months ago
Comment removed
sownzgr8 10 months ago
I haven't heard about this incident, but let's agree that it's true. How does that disprove evolution? All you're doing is showing that science is trustworthy because errors and frauds are eventually discovered. And Archaeoraptor is not the only proposed species linking therapods and birds. There are several now.
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
@Vincentaneous Real science can be trusted, but evolution is science fiction.
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
Summary: "Someone made a mistake, so evolution is wrong." Beyond that, the assertion that all transitional fossils have been shown to be fakes is an outright lie and entirely nonsensical, as "transitional" is not a distinct type of fossil. More importantly, the fact that this was a fake was discovered by applying science. The process of science is self-correcting and this video unintentionally demonstrates exactly why it is the best tool we have for understanding the universe.
PashaAntipov 11 months ago
@PashaAntipov We find real science very interesting, not your science fiction. If this is true, "science is self-correcting", then evolution would be gone as it cannot be proven in a court of law.
BereanBeacon1 11 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Where would the case for evolution fail? Exactly what are the weaknesses that would cause a judge or jury to reject the case? I'm curious here.
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
Comment removed
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 Here is advice from a well know evolutionist not to debate. Just search, EUGENIE C. SCOTT: Debate and Lose Critique. Her reasons not to debate are very weak and demonstrate that past debates were lost and so they would have to avoid a court room at all costs.
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
This isn't true and it's really sad that creationists must lie.
Illuminotorious 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The belief aspect of evolution contributes nothing to real observational science. Molecules to man evolution [evolutionism] doesn’t help an engineer build anything, help a medical Dr. in any way, or help a biologist understand the physiology of a plant. Evolutionism’s beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with ANY of our technology. It does nothing for observational science except waste time, money, & actually detracts from real scientific research. Real scientists have better things to do.
Bereitwilligkeit 11 months ago
Creationists are only interested in misrepresenting and denying science. The "Life Science Prize" is a fraud. You want scientists to bet $10 000 that they can convince a creationist of evolution, when the creationist has already said that no evidence will persuade him? Are you out of your mind?
Oh, wait.... what a silly question.
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 You must be a flawed product of a public school, as you either cannot read or you are misrepresenting the guide lines of the Prize purposely. Please go to the page and read it for the first time. Otherwise, cluck.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Let's say you contracted a rare and deadly infection and there are only two medications which could possibly cure it. They completely counteract each other if you take both.
1: Has been developed by a team of epidemiologists and submitted to a wide array of epidemiologists for further testing.
2: Has been developed by a kinesiologist and submitted only to the local circuit court judge for approval.
Which would you take and why?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
The fossil was a forgery. Who exposed the fraud? Scientists. What scientific journal published papers on the forgery? Why, none. How many actual scientists believed it? Two - and only at first, because a clever forgery took them in. When a group of experts looked carefully at it - as soon as it was available - it was exposed.
Does this mean there are no feathered dinosaurs? No. There are a dozen real fossils. And microraptors are still the ancestors of birds.
Why do creationists need to lie?
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Which part of 'science is not done in a courtroom' are you having a problem grasping?
Are you ever going to challenge creationists to present their evidence for legitimate peer review or are you only going to continue to make your completely unscientific challenge in your wholly unscientific arena?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@puffin02 Why do creationists need to lie? Because between that and quote-mining, it's the only tactics they have. They have no data on their side, they have no evidence on their side. Lies and misdirection are all which remain. As for the 'life science prize' malarky. A courtroom is not the place where science lives; that's for law. Fundamental inability to comprehend even that is why nobody takes it seriously enough to want to even humour it.
pyrespirit 11 months ago
dinosaurs are bigger lie then landing n the moon
Globox822 1 year ago
@Globox822 Still not as big a lie as "God exists." or "A charismatic rabbi rose from the dead."
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
Fraudulent claims in science do not 'embarass scientists.' Unlike religion, when a fraudster is uncovered in the scientific realm, their scientific careers are over, period. Science is self-regulating, and scientists are brutal to one another. You just have to look at the fraud surrounding cold fusion to see that; nobody who perpetrates scientific fraud will be allowed to work in the scientific community again. Unlike in religion, where being imprisoned seems to make one more popular.
pyrespirit 1 year ago
@pyrespirit Very scientific. Next time try being informative instead of just opinionated with your Alice in Wonderland defense of the indefensible as an excuse to speciously attack religion.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Way to actually say absolutely nothing. Science is founded on evidence, on data. If something is supported by data, it is accepted. If it is unsupported or contravened by data, it is discarded. Religion is founded on the notion of 'believe us, or else. We have nothing besides our promise that it's true, but it's true! Honest!' You need to look up specious; it implies deception. Deception is antithetical to science, but required for religion.
pyrespirit 1 year ago
@pyrespirit We cannot hold any meaningful dialogue as long as you persist in equating your doctrinal ideology with scientific evolution. To start with, understand I am not critical of real and provable evolution as defined by speciation, or: “when a population has evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit (cont)
I accept the reality of mutations and natural selection, but contend that they are incapable of creating any of the vast amounts of novel genetic information required for the voodoo science of doctrinal goo-2-you evolution as everything must have a sufficient cause.
TO PUT IT VERY SIMPLY:
Intelligence arises from an intelligent source. OR
Intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.
Which has a sufficient cause?
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Why would I care that you're unable to 'hold meaningful dialogue'? You actually have to have some basis to stand on before meaningful dialogue is appropriate; and your continued flawed assertations just show you're inherently incapable of 'meaningful dialogue' on scientific subjects. This is most especially evidenced by the ridiculous buzzwords, notably 'evolutionism' and 'goo-2-you,' both of which are very clear indications of a person who lacks grasp of sufficient materials
pyrespirit 1 year ago
@pyrespirit Awwww! Did I hurt your itty-bitty feelings by referring to your religion of doctrinal evolution as goo-2-u evolutionism? I'll not lie and say I'm sorry, as I'm simply showing the same kind of respect that you have shown for competing religion with your bloviating: "Unlike in religion, where being imprisoned seems to make one more popular," and like comments. They are both religions. One secular, one spiritual. One based on consensus science, one based on Gods word.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Once again, the lack of understanding is apparant. 'Feelings' have nothing to do with it; and the fact that you decide to home in on that to try and distract ffrom having no real argument is, again, telling. As is trying to argue anything about science is 'religious.' Your 'arguments' are as ridiculous as they are false, but your willingness to spout deceit is exactly why the statement on the nature of religion thriving with deceit are correct.
pyrespirit 1 year ago
@pyrespirit You did a nice job of avoiding any response to the fact that the mechanisms underlying microevolution cannot be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.
Which of course leaves goo-2-u evolution without a leg to stand on. Like bacteria. All bacteria can change. But they remain bacteria. There is zero proof that they ever have been or ever will be anything but bacteria. One does not have to go back billions of years to know that.
(cont)
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont)
One can believe that they changed billions of years ago, but that would be based on faith, not on any data, or evidence.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit I don't need to respond to that because it's a ludicrous non-point. There is no 'micro-evolution' or 'macro-evolution.' There is evolution. Whether it's examined over short term or long term. There are plenty of data regarding the possible methods for single cell organisms to evolve into multi-cell; any symbiotic colony existing today shows a possible intermediary step. There is nothing -but- proof all around, which is why the theory is accepted by anybody with any knowledge.
pyrespirit 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@pyrespirit You invent your own dictionary definitions which makes you a liar.
MICROEVOLUTION:
noun Biology
evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, esp. over a short period. [This is the only proven and established evolution.]
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
MACROEVOLUTION:
noun Biology
major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time. [mechanisms underlying microevolution have never been extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution, which-makes it a bogus claim until such time that it is.] You can stamp your feet and scream that evolutionism is true all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the only “science” built on faith.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
It begins with abiogenesis, the faith that dead things can EVOLVE and come to life as replicating organisms. NOTHING DEAD CAN EVOLVE AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT IT CAN - THAT’S FAITH! Without abiogenesis, evolutionism is without foundation, end of story.
* N-O-T-H-I-N-G to E-V-O-L-V-E.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Buwwaaaahahahahahahah the same thing has been going on for one hundred years with these phony fossils and "missing links." Evolution never happened, thus there are no such fossils. In their zeal to support their religion, evolution followers have introduced numerous frauds.
DragMeToHellLuc 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit In your mind, what would constitute proof that a population of bacteria evolved into something that wasn't bacteria? In other words, what evidence would change your mind?
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
@Vincentaneous It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything--or at least they are not science
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All bacteria can change. But they stay bacteria. There is no proof that they ever have been, or ever will be anything but bacteria. One does not have to go back billions of years to know that. One can BELIEVE that they changed billions of years ago, but that would be based on faith, not on any data, or evidence. Just speculations, and non sequitur’s with ad hoc explanations.
(cont)
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
(cont)
Besides, why would it be a ONE TIME DEAL billions of years ago? Are there not innumerable new bacteria replicating every day? Surely, they should be able to find many examples of bacteria morphing as we speak? “It happens over billions of years” only serves to demand trillions of examples. Where are they?
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit I didn't know you were an atheist.
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
@Vincentaneous Are you trying to be funny?
Bereitwilligkeit 10 months ago
@Vincentaneous You just said that "statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything - or at least they are not science". God cannot be "checked by observation".
Vincentaneous 10 months ago
@pyrespirit Evolutionists routinely apply proofs for biological evolution to doctrinal evolution, deliberately blurring the divergence that SHOULD APPROPRIATELY SEPARATE the two. This doctrinal evolution is built on the purposive posits of atheists claiming that macro & micro evolution are the same. Like insisting that lighting enough matches will eventually culminate in an atomic explosion. this has never been proven, but is claimed nonetheless.
*
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
(cont) The most recent serious address to this question that I can locate is from 1980. “The central question of the Nov 21st, 1980 Chicago conference “Evolutionary theory under fire” was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear no.” Robert Lewiston’s report in Science, vol 210, p 883
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@pyrespirit (cont)
Btw, I chose the word specious in full knowledge that it implies deception. Deception is antithetical to science, but required for the religion known as evolutionism that hides behind name of science.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
isn't evolution proven science?
stickinup2188 1 year ago
Yes.
sweatytoothmadman 1 year ago
@stickinup2188 Yes! It's a scientific theory, which is the highest level of acceptance that science can have. Only creationists of various religions refute it as it goes against their belief!
Not believing in evolution is the same as not believing in gravity or relativity.
maskofsan1ty 1 year ago
@stickinup2188 Despite consensus science that evolutionism is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. I have no quarrel with speciation, only with Goo-2-u doctrinal evolutionism, which is built on faith and assumptions. For instance, no one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Evolutionists ASSUME that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
(cont)
Unless repeatable, testability doesn’t apply to evolution “science” It’s up to evolutionuts to PROVE microevolution is long term macroevolution, while not forgetting to factor in the disintegration, entropy, and natural decomposition of the various materials over millions/billions of years
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
“I would remind you that where the claim of consensus is invoked, consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Scientists aren't 'great precisely because they broke with the consensus.' Breaking with consensus has absolutely nothing to do with it; consensus is irrelevant. Data is the only relevance. The greatest scientists discovered and analyzed data in ways which made sense of the data. Consensus or lack thereof is completely irrelevant when compared to empirical data.
pyrespirit 1 year ago
@Bereitwilligkeit "it really is no more than an improbable story." Nice try. It's a solid and well-supported theory in which every single datum discovered to date fits within the model, and not a single datum has contravened. It has required modifcation to fit with a growing understanding; but requiring modification is only a weakness when it's applied to something supposedly immutable; which no scientific theory is.
pyrespirit 1 year ago
*face palm*
dotbstudios 1 year ago
boring!
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago
Furthermore, there are hundreds of transitional fossils known to science. Dozens of which belong to hominins.
One more thing, the tail of this fake fossil was later determined to belong to microraptor, which is another breath-taking example of a transitional fossil (one between birds and dinosaurs). Just a funny irony in the history of fossil hunting.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Furthermore, National Geographic is not a scientific journal. It is a popular science magazine. Only a few scientists believed the fossil to be legitimate, but when it was presented to other scientists they showed why it was a fake. Claiming that this fossil proves the paleontological community wrong because National Geographic published an article about it is like saying physics was shown to be wrong because the popular press published an article stating that cold fusion was possible.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
1:26. That is simply a lie. I mean, the most famous transitional fossil in the world is archaeopteryx and it is a transition from dinosaur to bird. Moreover, the ~seven specimens of archaeopteryx have withstood the test of time.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 2 years ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 2 years ago
This is a fine example of the logic, or lack thereof, that is the hallmark of Creationism. Their attempts to portray science as another religion are as dogged as their adherance to bronze age myths. Yes, scientists make mistakes. The difference between science and a pseudoscience like Creationism is that real scientists admit their error. When a scientist is proven wrong they are happy that knowledge has been advanced. When Creationists screw up and are called out its just lies and coverups.
MrHappyHumanist 2 years ago
Youre repeating lies youve been told. The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Its a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy & ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may. There are numerous paradigm some disproven since the 1800s that are still in todays science texts.
Bereitwilligkeit 2 years ago
"Youre repeating lies youve been told"
I'm capable of thinking for myself, thanks.
"a paradigm...is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it."
Yes and no. A theory isnt discarded simply because a new one comes along. If a new theory better explains natural phenomena then over time it becomes the accepted theory. Plate tectonics superceding continental drift comes to mind.
"numerous paradigm some disproven since the 1800s...still in science texts"
Examples?
MrHappyHumanist 2 years ago
@MrHappyHumanist
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
We still have those goofy Haeckel drawings in 2004 textbooks for crying out loud. They are still teaching there are vestigial organs, science books (so called) are still teaching human fetuses have tails and gills.
Neodarwinists are nothing like scientists, they never EVER give up.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
Haeckels drawings being found in textbooks is an example of a problem with text book publishers, not science. You will never see a reference to Haeckels drawings in any scientific journal.
Furthermore, there are vestigial organs (by its proper definition and by the straw man creationists use). Furthermore, human fetuses do have tails, and I have not seen one textbook that states human fetuses have gills.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst SIGH! Thats still no tail, its the tailbone(coccyx). While its true, the end of the spine sticks out noticeably in a one-month embryo, but thats because muscles and limbs dont develop until stimulated by the spine. As the legs develop, they surround & envelop the coccyx, & it winds up inside the body. Developed, it has 9 muscles attached to it. While the coccyx CAN be removed, its major surgery. Not like cutting off a tail. Man simply has not got the DNA to develop a tail.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
Add to that : the geologic column, the paradigm of leftover DNA from evolution that has been holding back biological and medical research for many years.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
The geological column? You mean the same geologic column that was discovered before Darwin proposed his ideas of natural and sexual selection? The paradigm of left over DNA? Would you please cite a source for this claim. And for the claim that evolution is holding back biological and medical science.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
First off, you seemed to have omitted some basics about human development in your self-contradictory first statement. In the first month of development, normal human embryos contain 10-12 developing tail vertebrae (Fallon and Simandl 1978; Moore and Persaud 1998; and Nievelstein et al. 1993). However, by the end of the second month, the last six vertebrae are reabsorbed and the fourth and fifth vertebrae start to reabsorb (Fallon and Simandl 1978; and Nievelstein et al. 1993).
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst That is a blatant misrepresentation. The coccyx is hardly reabsorbed, the buttocks simply are not developed this early in the child's development.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
Please cite some evidence for this claim. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You see, I have provided you with the sources for the claims I have made. You are able to track them yourself. Simply because it does not fit into your preconceived notion does not mean it is wrong.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst Good grief! MY preconceived notion? You're a fine one to talk about preconceived notions. Check with ANY pediatrician or google embryonic stages yourself.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
Oh yes, Google, the source for all scientific information.
I have already cited sources for you from peer-reviewed journals. Simply because you believe that they are wrong does not mean they are wrong. You need to provide the sources that show that what I said was wrong.
Again, simply because this does not fit into your preconceived notion, does not mean it is wrong. It means your preconceived notion is wrong. Now please, provide sources to show that I am wrong or please admit that you are wrong
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst If you can refer to atheist reviewed journals as your sources, I should be able to more credibly cite the Mickey Mouse club.
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
Atheist reviewed? What makes them atheistic? I really want you to answer this question for me. You are aware that most scientists in the U.S. are religious.
You did cite Google as one of your sources. I think the Mickey Mouse Club might be a step up from that. Furthermore, I am still waiting for you to cite anything that shows that I am wrong.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Second, it seems that your claim about humans not having the DNA to develop a tail is simply wrong. According to Dao and Netsky 1984; Hall 1984; and Hall 1995 the DNA for creating a tail is in the human genome. Furthermore, these are true tails with mussels and vertebras (Belzberg et al. 1991; Dao and Netsky 1984; and Grange et al. 2001) which in some cases can move (Baruchin et al. 1983; and Dao and Netsky 1984), not just pseudo-tails (Dao and Netsky 1984; and Dubrow et al. 1988).
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
@jebus6kryst 1983-8? Why the heck are you referring to stone age DNA info? Mussels in 2001? LOL!
Bereitwilligkeit 1 year ago
Since you are mocking the dates of my citations, it is safe to assume that you have more up to date citations that refute my point? Please cite them.
jebus6kryst 1 year ago
Birds are dinosaurs. Fact.
"Creation Moments". A lot like "Brain Farts".
TheSkepdick 2 years ago
there was an article in New scientist with the chinese scientist Xu Xing who has now named over thirty different dinosaurs and specialise in feathered raptors. one of them they have found over 1000 skeletons off which just shows what lies this article is.
noelplum99 2 years ago
So since scientists found that it was not the fossil that was claimed to have been found by the dig team the scientists are wrong???
I think even retards can see this is a stupid argument.
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago
Archaeoraptor was a fake, so what?
Sinosauropteryx, Microraptor, Jinfengopteryx...all credible feathered Dinosaurs fossils, peer reviewed, and re-examined time and time again.
When Science gets it wrong, what is it that says it is wrong...SCIENCE! That's the point.
Cardiffdance 2 years ago
Comment removed
Bereitwilligkeit 2 years ago