Evolultion Debunked By Archeology [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig]
61-69, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Haaaahahahaha!😆😂😭 👏👏👏
Talk about dishonest!
You just [b][u]replaced the video[/u][/b] in your post because it was so soundly refuted!
For anyone interested, here is the link to the pseudo-science that godspeed first posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcF1WmjyUYw&t
I DID tell you to remove the content if you didn't stand behind it so I'ma give you just one chance to salvage some integrity and [i]admit [/i] that you deleted that video because you realized it was invalid as evidence of your claim.
Go on. Show us you're a man.
In the meantime, allow me to explain the well-understood flaws in the NEW video you posted.
Hovind is a good speaker, very entertaining, charismatic and lots of amusing quips.
But that's about all he's got going for him.
So in amongst all the straw manning and flawed analogies, we arrive at carbon dating.
Hovind either does not understand carbon dating or is deliberately misrepresenting it. Let's have a look:
He stumbles right out of the gate when he talks about using carbon dating on dinosaur fossils because carbon dating is only accurate up to about 50,000 years. There are of course many other forms of radiometric dating which do not have this limit.
Hovind mockingly announces that snails, seals and penguins have been found to have inaccurate carbon dates. That's absolutely true. But what do all these animals have in common? That's right, they're aquatic and this anomaly is a well understood phenomenon known as the Reservoir effect. While plants and land animals get their carbon-14 directly or indirectly from the air around them, aquatic organisms get it from the water. So while terrestrial organisms are getting the carbon from our atmosphere, aquatic organisms are absorbing carbon from things like limestone which gives them a much older apparent age.
This is known and in fact the example of the snail which Hovind cites can be found in a paper titled [b]"Radio carbon dating: fictitious results in mollusk shells"[/b]. The point of the paper is showing where carbon dating can be flawed, not that it is fundamentally inaccurate.
So Hovind is fucked coming and going, you see.
He is either ignorant on the subject he's preaching or he's being deliberately dishonest . Either way, he loses credibility.
So do you have a response to that or are you going to tuck your wittle tail between your wittle legs and tell me to go talk to Hovind about it?😁😁😁
Talk about dishonest!
You just [b][u]replaced the video[/u][/b] in your post because it was so soundly refuted!
For anyone interested, here is the link to the pseudo-science that godspeed first posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcF1WmjyUYw&t
I DID tell you to remove the content if you didn't stand behind it so I'ma give you just one chance to salvage some integrity and [i]admit [/i] that you deleted that video because you realized it was invalid as evidence of your claim.
Go on. Show us you're a man.
In the meantime, allow me to explain the well-understood flaws in the NEW video you posted.
Hovind is a good speaker, very entertaining, charismatic and lots of amusing quips.
But that's about all he's got going for him.
So in amongst all the straw manning and flawed analogies, we arrive at carbon dating.
Hovind either does not understand carbon dating or is deliberately misrepresenting it. Let's have a look:
He stumbles right out of the gate when he talks about using carbon dating on dinosaur fossils because carbon dating is only accurate up to about 50,000 years. There are of course many other forms of radiometric dating which do not have this limit.
Hovind mockingly announces that snails, seals and penguins have been found to have inaccurate carbon dates. That's absolutely true. But what do all these animals have in common? That's right, they're aquatic and this anomaly is a well understood phenomenon known as the Reservoir effect. While plants and land animals get their carbon-14 directly or indirectly from the air around them, aquatic organisms get it from the water. So while terrestrial organisms are getting the carbon from our atmosphere, aquatic organisms are absorbing carbon from things like limestone which gives them a much older apparent age.
This is known and in fact the example of the snail which Hovind cites can be found in a paper titled [b]"Radio carbon dating: fictitious results in mollusk shells"[/b]. The point of the paper is showing where carbon dating can be flawed, not that it is fundamentally inaccurate.
So Hovind is fucked coming and going, you see.
He is either ignorant on the subject he's preaching or he's being deliberately dishonest . Either way, he loses credibility.
So do you have a response to that or are you going to tuck your wittle tail between your wittle legs and tell me to go talk to Hovind about it?😁😁😁
View 180 more replies »
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Pherick It's hilarious that you recognize rock solid truth as 'cute, funny and clever'.
PS - I know I'm old. I filled out my profile. Reminding me of the obvious I think is more a statement about you than me.
You know nothing about me or what is easy or difficult. This conversation makes me feel a little guilty though. I feel like a cat playing with a mouse. But, I really wish you would escape and remain in hiding instead of trying to launch some barrage of insults.
If you want to learn about insults - watch cartoon boy!
PS - I know I'm old. I filled out my profile. Reminding me of the obvious I think is more a statement about you than me.
You know nothing about me or what is easy or difficult. This conversation makes me feel a little guilty though. I feel like a cat playing with a mouse. But, I really wish you would escape and remain in hiding instead of trying to launch some barrage of insults.
If you want to learn about insults - watch cartoon boy!
Sorry, but this thing stumbles right out the gate!
The very first argument is one that has long been debunked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
The Paluxy tracks aren't even taken seriously by many creationists.
Even [i][u]Answers in Genesis[/u] [/i]says that they're not compelling enough to be considered good evidence of that "fact" that dinosaurs and humans coexisted:
[quote]Creation scientists from various organizations have investigated the Paluxy River fossils. Given the ambiguity of the evidence and the fact that much of what may have once been present is no longer available for study, we do not believe those claims of coexisting human and dinosaur prints are wholly supportable. Dr. John Morris in 1986 reported similar conclusions, deciding “it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution”1 unless further research brings new facts to light.[/quote]
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/footprints/paluxy-river-tracks-in-texas-spotlight/
Is there any point in watching the rest of this video?
Do you feel there is more compelling evidence in there somewhere? This was not a encouraging start.
The very first argument is one that has long been debunked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
The Paluxy tracks aren't even taken seriously by many creationists.
Even [i][u]Answers in Genesis[/u] [/i]says that they're not compelling enough to be considered good evidence of that "fact" that dinosaurs and humans coexisted:
[quote]Creation scientists from various organizations have investigated the Paluxy River fossils. Given the ambiguity of the evidence and the fact that much of what may have once been present is no longer available for study, we do not believe those claims of coexisting human and dinosaur prints are wholly supportable. Dr. John Morris in 1986 reported similar conclusions, deciding “it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution”1 unless further research brings new facts to light.[/quote]
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/footprints/paluxy-river-tracks-in-texas-spotlight/
Is there any point in watching the rest of this video?
Do you feel there is more compelling evidence in there somewhere? This was not a encouraging start.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Who is this snake-oil merchant?
He’s hilarious! What’s his name?
He speaks as if carbon-14 dating and radiometric dating were equivalent... [i]they’re not[/i]
They’re two completely different things.
Carbon-14 dating works well for archeology, because it goes back only 50,000 years (the new process called Accelerator Mass Spectrometry gives even better results).
Carbon-14 dating is [b]never[/b] used for fossils
He does a good job of selling Walt Brown’s books (the real purpose of this video), but knowingly lies while doing there (Brown does [i]not[/i] have a Ph.D. in physics)
A high-schoolstudent could dismantle this stream of sophistry... but neither the student nor I would bother.
The video is pure piffle, designed to confuse its audience, mislead the gullible... and line the pockets of those associated with it.
He’s hilarious! What’s his name?
He speaks as if carbon-14 dating and radiometric dating were equivalent... [i]they’re not[/i]
They’re two completely different things.
Carbon-14 dating works well for archeology, because it goes back only 50,000 years (the new process called Accelerator Mass Spectrometry gives even better results).
Carbon-14 dating is [b]never[/b] used for fossils
He does a good job of selling Walt Brown’s books (the real purpose of this video), but knowingly lies while doing there (Brown does [i]not[/i] have a Ph.D. in physics)
A high-schoolstudent could dismantle this stream of sophistry... but neither the student nor I would bother.
The video is pure piffle, designed to confuse its audience, mislead the gullible... and line the pockets of those associated with it.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 "All evidence points to a young earth..."
ALL evidence?
Wich documented one? May you give as a link to it´s source (no to comments nor conferences based on it) in a scientific publication (not a pamphlet)?
How much young than the one meassured by scientists?
ALL evidence?
Wich documented one? May you give as a link to it´s source (no to comments nor conferences based on it) in a scientific publication (not a pamphlet)?
How much young than the one meassured by scientists?
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
@GodSpeed63 You start with the premise of a God. Yet you can't prove one exists!! 🤷♀️
MarmeeMarch · M
@Harriet03 God also designed your family. Oh well.
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
@MarmeeMarch See above!
Even this video shows that they are not human prints but theropod tracks that become exposed as the carbonic acid is allowed to further expose the underlying layers. The five toes become three large ones. The tracks are made by a theropod dinosaur pressing it's metatarsals into the ground as it walks, taking on an elongated human like shape. The wet mud then collapse in on itself creating a human like print "roof" over the actual print. Removing this roof via erosion shows the underlying theropod track that they show that is under the print in the video at timestamp 8:00.
This paluxy river controversy has been abandoned even by most creationists.
This paluxy river controversy has been abandoned even by most creationists.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
yeronlyman · 51-55, M
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
When I hit the play button it immediately goes to a box that says video unavailable, but I didn’t notice underneath of that, it tells you where to go to view it on YouTube. Sorry. @GodSpeed63
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@LadyGrace It's okay.
Please see my latest post. I think you’ll really like it. @GodSpeed63
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@dondon @Harriet03 [quote]And people like this get to vote and you wonder why the world is a mess[/quote]
Next thing you want is to dictate that 'people like us' don't get to vote and have our freedom taken from us. Putting the blame where it doesn't belong. Nazi Germany, all over again. FRIGHTENING!
Next thing you want is to dictate that 'people like us' don't get to vote and have our freedom taken from us. Putting the blame where it doesn't belong. Nazi Germany, all over again. FRIGHTENING!
dondon · M
@GodSpeed63 It's for the best, we can't have religious people running around, killing everyone (unless ofcourse it's a foetus). Enslaving women, ignoring global warming and rining that annoying bell when I'm trying to sleep.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@dondon [quote]It's for the best, we can't have religious people [/quote]
For your information, I'm not a religious person, I'm a True Believer in Christ and I don't go around killing people or enslaving women. There are millions upon millions like me who love to see that none of us be lost but all come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
For your information, I'm not a religious person, I'm a True Believer in Christ and I don't go around killing people or enslaving women. There are millions upon millions like me who love to see that none of us be lost but all come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@GodSpeed63 no...I couldn't. There's only so much stupidity I can handle at one time.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@HoraceGreenley [quote]There's only so much stupidity I can handle at one time.[/quote]
Like yours? You always judge a book by its cover? Not very smart.
Like yours? You always judge a book by its cover? Not very smart.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@GodSpeed63 I watched about half of the video
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MarmeeMarch · M
I am not going to watch a video that is over 30 seconds long - but what are we carbon dating ?
abe182 · 46-50, M
Video is unavailable
