Evolultion Debunked By Archeology [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig]
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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?😁😁😁
1-25 of 183
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]Talk about dishonest![/quote]
Laughing boy, @Pikachu, again who doesn't know his butt from his elbow.
Laughing boy, @Pikachu, again who doesn't know his butt from his elbow.
@GodSpeed63
[quote]Talk about dishonest![/quote]
lol buddy.
You posted a pseudo-scientific video and when you got called on it, you removed it and re-posted a different one.
And at [i]no[/i] point for either video did you even attempt to respond to the criticism of your "evidence" raise by myself and other users.
My momma always said dishonest is as dishonest does🤪
[quote]Talk about dishonest![/quote]
lol buddy.
You posted a pseudo-scientific video and when you got called on it, you removed it and re-posted a different one.
And at [i]no[/i] point for either video did you even attempt to respond to the criticism of your "evidence" raise by myself and other users.
My momma always said dishonest is as dishonest does🤪
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@GodSpeed63
Did you delete your first video after it was roundly refuted and replace it with one you thought was better?
Yup
At ANY point did you defend either video against the [u]specific[/u] criticisms leveled against it?
NOPE.
lol yeah, son. Point a-[i]proven[/i]😁
Like sharon said, your dishonesty has been exposed in front of EVERYONE. No attempt to save face will change that fact.
Your best bet is just deleting this thread....except i've already taken screen shots so....
Did you delete your first video after it was roundly refuted and replace it with one you thought was better?
Yup
At ANY point did you defend either video against the [u]specific[/u] criticisms leveled against it?
NOPE.
lol yeah, son. Point a-[i]proven[/i]😁
Like sharon said, your dishonesty has been exposed in front of EVERYONE. No attempt to save face will change that fact.
Your best bet is just deleting this thread....except i've already taken screen shots so....
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]Did you delete your first video after it was roundly refuted and replace it with one you thought was better?Yup[/quote]
Nope. Since the first video had trouble being viewed, I replaced it with one that could be viewed. You're wishful thinking that it was refuted is greatly exaggerated.
Nope. Since the first video had trouble being viewed, I replaced it with one that could be viewed. You're wishful thinking that it was refuted is greatly exaggerated.
@GodSpeed63
lol oh i see.
Then i retract my previous statement that this was the closest you've come to admitting that you were wrong.😆
[quote]You're wishful thinking that it was refuted is greatly exaggerated.[/quote]
Nope. IT was soundly refuted by myself, causernamebemyusername AND Answers in Genesis.
And you still find yourself frustratedly helpless to offer a rebuttal.
Actually, you've been tellingly silent on the matter of offering a rebuttal to the debunking of THIS video as well.
Hmmmmm
lol oh i see.
Then i retract my previous statement that this was the closest you've come to admitting that you were wrong.😆
[quote]You're wishful thinking that it was refuted is greatly exaggerated.[/quote]
Nope. IT was soundly refuted by myself, causernamebemyusername AND Answers in Genesis.
And you still find yourself frustratedly helpless to offer a rebuttal.
Actually, you've been tellingly silent on the matter of offering a rebuttal to the debunking of THIS video as well.
Hmmmmm
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]Just basing it on how long it took you to come up with your excuse.[/quote]
What excuse would that be?
What excuse would that be?
@GodSpeed63
The excuse that you wanted to take it down and replace it with a completely different video because some people had to view it on Youtube and couldn't embed it.
Don't care. Not particularly interested in whether you deleted out of cowardice or convenience.
I [i]am[/i] interested to see if you're going to continue to deflect from what i have made abundantly clear is the [i]real[/i] subject of discussion.
BOTH videos you posted were swiftly and roundly refuted.
Let's see you defend the content of those videos.
Or are you just going to ignore that challenge and hope it goes away?
That would be awfully dishonest of you. Cowardly, even.
And any response you make which does NOT include a response to this challenge will confirm that you are both dishonest and a coward.
I expect nothing less from you.
Prove me wrong, son!😁👍
The excuse that you wanted to take it down and replace it with a completely different video because some people had to view it on Youtube and couldn't embed it.
Don't care. Not particularly interested in whether you deleted out of cowardice or convenience.
I [i]am[/i] interested to see if you're going to continue to deflect from what i have made abundantly clear is the [i]real[/i] subject of discussion.
BOTH videos you posted were swiftly and roundly refuted.
Let's see you defend the content of those videos.
Or are you just going to ignore that challenge and hope it goes away?
That would be awfully dishonest of you. Cowardly, even.
And any response you make which does NOT include a response to this challenge will confirm that you are both dishonest and a coward.
I expect nothing less from you.
Prove me wrong, son!😁👍
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]BOTH videos you posted were swiftly and roundly refuted.[/quote]
I doubt that. I don't prove you wrong, you do a good job of it on your own.
I doubt that. I don't prove you wrong, you do a good job of it on your own.
@GodSpeed63
[quote]I don't prove you wrong, [/quote]
lol quite correct. You don't tend to prove me wrong.
But i'm challenging you to try.
THAT was your one and only freebie.
Show us you're a man and stand behind y our content.
Or show us you're coward and keep deflecting.
Here, let me make it easy for you.
Address these criticisms or remove your content:
[b]Video 1[/b]
Pikachu ·
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 Answers in Genesis 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/
[b]Video2[/b]
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 "Radio carbon dating: fictitious results in mollusk shells". 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.
Come on boy! you can do it! There's a good boy! Yes, there's my brave boy! Come on!
Good boy!
[quote]I don't prove you wrong, [/quote]
lol quite correct. You don't tend to prove me wrong.
But i'm challenging you to try.
THAT was your one and only freebie.
Show us you're a man and stand behind y our content.
Or show us you're coward and keep deflecting.
Here, let me make it easy for you.
Address these criticisms or remove your content:
[b]Video 1[/b]
Pikachu ·
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 Answers in Genesis 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/
[b]Video2[/b]
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 "Radio carbon dating: fictitious results in mollusk shells". 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.
Come on boy! you can do it! There's a good boy! Yes, there's my brave boy! Come on!
Good boy!
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Pikachu Its always amazing to me when you or any of the other awesome folks here, give a reasoned side to a debate, and then the few folks who engage you to use these "cute" comebacks that in no way deal with your argument. They might as well just say "I can't come back against that, you win", by trying to be "cute" and deflect, they are saying the same thing, just with less intelligence.
@GodSpeed63
lol still playing stupid, still retreating from an honest debate.😏
That's fine. It's expected.
You keep posting your little videos, i'll keep blowing them out of the water and you can keep showing our audience how poorly creationists defend their position.
As always, you do more damage to the credibility of creationism as a dishonest believer than i can as an honest skeptic.
Thanks!😁
lol still playing stupid, still retreating from an honest debate.😏
That's fine. It's expected.
You keep posting your little videos, i'll keep blowing them out of the water and you can keep showing our audience how poorly creationists defend their position.
As always, you do more damage to the credibility of creationism as a dishonest believer than i can as an honest skeptic.
Thanks!😁
@Pherick
lol yes. Rather telling, isn't it?
It seems to me that when i have a good argument about something i care about, i tend to make an argument for it...
As i said, guys like this do more damage to the credibility of their own position than i ever could because people see what evolutionists bring to the table vs what creationists bring to the table.
Kinda sad that he doesn't see that.
lol yes. Rather telling, isn't it?
It seems to me that when i have a good argument about something i care about, i tend to make an argument for it...
As i said, guys like this do more damage to the credibility of their own position than i ever could because people see what evolutionists bring to the table vs what creationists bring to the table.
Kinda sad that he doesn't see that.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]still playing stupid, still retreating from an honest debate.[/quote]
Depends on what you call stupid. I doubt that I'd be retreating from an honest debate, rather from one that would save your face.
Depends on what you call stupid. I doubt that I'd be retreating from an honest debate, rather from one that would save your face.
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 When have you ever debated honestly?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
1-25 of 183