Amazing work as usual. I love how detailed you are. There's no one else doing such a thing on KZread. I hope this channel and videos get the number of likes and views it deserves. The majority of other people are doing ridiculous top tens of dinosaurs and stuff like that and they get much more views. Which is bloody unfair! Please guys, help this gentleman get the podium 'cause he deserves it.

6 жыл бұрын

Rui pedro gonçalves thank you for the support! People on KZread are really kind actually, and most of my "bad" comments are constructive.

@psalm1tree466

6 жыл бұрын

Let's look at how data-free theories presented as evidence are called science in evolutionism, with Tiktaalik, the fish that countless peer reviews want you to think you 'evolved" from. Take a quick peek at Tiktaalik's fossil and have your eyes opened to the actual facts. www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fossil&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=3h3LRBfeemp57M%253A%252CJfQpmsce0MgauM%252C_&usg=__r48ClG1TAIW07mlLWT9C6BOw5Yw%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj96M2C5rTaAhVO2FMKHR3mA9oQ9QEIYjAK&biw=1366&bih=637#imgrc=3h3LRBfeemp57 Notice that this lobe finned fish does not even have any fossilized material for the hind end, "legs", or even a fin, there. The highly fragmented frontal fins are mostly missing and going in a horizontal direction. not a vertical direction as would be needed for legs. (Frankly, when some claim to see legs forming on that fossil I have to laugh. It's knee slapping hilarious.) See any evidence - you know, what real science uses - that water breathing lungs are turning into air breathing lungs? . Lobe finned fish don't have legs. No fish have legs. Having a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, as they claim shows it evolved into you, just shows it had a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, i.e. minor variations such as we see constantly in nature. It doesn't show legs. . Though evolutionists want to tell us Tik evolved into a tetrapod amphibian with the cutsey nickname of "fishapod", ichthyologists call it a lobe finned FISH. Evolutionism presents theories that have no data and ignores the real data. Dont let evo-think rob you of your common sense and common knowledge about fish. Maybe read The Emperor's New Clothes. . The person who discovered Tik was Neil Shubin. (He claims to have predicted its discovery but I have seen no literature supporting that claim before the find. When I ask others, who believe the claim, to provide documentation, they never respond.) In his book Your Inner Fish he says himself that there is no way to be sure Tik was a transition of any kind. But he says that, if not, "something like it" was. . The evidence he presents for something like it? Zero. So, that's the big data showing you supposedly are a fish update? One incredibly fragmented, very incomplete, fossil which even its biggest supporter admits may not be a transition - while we are supposed to ignore the countless billions of fossils, and living exmples, that always show fish stay fish? . We have a planet overflowing with data! It shows fish in the real world and in the fossils. Fish never have had legs or even parts of legs. They stay fish. . Also, let's look at the artistic replicas of Tik that are pictured along with the fossil. Though the actual fossil has only small, close to the body, highly fragmented frontal fins, the artistic renditions show it with long, strong, muscular leg-like structuress as it makes its amazing "ascent" to land. Fictional artwork, including computer simulatioms which do not match the observable evidence, are consistently used to defend evoutionism. . Now, one artist's imaginary, small and flat, tail could presumably slide onto land. Also those artists who providced Tik with a snake- like tail present a scenario that makes a climb to land seem somewhat feasible. What about the tails lobe finned fish really have, however? Well, they have broad vertical tails - not exactly the kinds that would be most useful for climbs to land. . Let's look at what some secular scientists have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism. . We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said.... "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331. . Now I hasten to add that in his next sentence Mueller went on to say "Nevertheless we can infer..." to support evolutionism anyway. That's how it goes in the politically correct, fiercely self protective, orthodox world of Neo Darwinisn. If the hard fought for research data doesn't agree with the sacred cow theory, no problem - just "infer" something that has goes in the exact opposite direction of what the data showed. . Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing. . As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc. . But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) a new family. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past. Why don't we see any species transitioning to a new family today? . Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution. . Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. "We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions." . "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) . "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.) . "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin) . On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts . Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. kzread.info/dash/bejne/Znx51M-pZbPgodo.html . Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.

@merrickgustavo6502

3 жыл бұрын

Pro tip : watch series at Flixzone. I've been using them for watching loads of movies these days.

@brodietaylor7467

3 жыл бұрын

@Merrick Gustavo yup, I've been watching on flixzone} for years myself :D

Thanks for the video! Taught me a lot

Frogs and salamanders look like that along time ago I do not know that🦎🐸

Thanks for uploading this magnificent two part 'Historia Amphibiorum'! BTW around 4:57 you say that frogs have no ribs, using (...) and that's what I couldn't understand, though trying hardly many times. Do you deal there with what they use to compensate for the absence of ribs? Please, let me know.

1:47 the first picture is of a Hypselotriton (Cynops) orientalis, the rest of them are accurate though.

@psalm1tree466

6 жыл бұрын

Some say lungfish are evidence of fish to amphibian evolution. Notice they are called FISH. What evidence can you cite showing they ever have been, or ever will be, anything but lungfish? Further, how could they have anything to do with the supposed transition of fish to tetrapods in the distant past, since they live in the present as fish? The other example that is supposed to be convincing is Tiktaalik. Take a quick peek at Tiktaalik's fossil and have your eyes opened to the actual facts. www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fossil&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=3h3LRBfeemp57M%253A%252CJfQpmsce0MgauM%252C_&usg=__r48ClG1TAIW07mlLWT9C6BOw5Yw%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj96M2C5rTaAhVO2FMKHR3mA9oQ9QEIYjAK&biw=1366&bih=637#imgrc=3h3LRBfeemp57 Notice it does not even have any fossilized material for the hind end "legs", or even a fin, there. The highly fragmented frontal fins are mostly missing and going in a horizontal direction. not a vertical direction as would be needed for legs. (Frankly, when some claim to see legs forming on that fossil I have to laugh. It's knee slapping hilarious.) See any evidence - you know, what real science uses - that water breathing lungs are turning into air breathing lungs? . Lobe finned fish don't have legs. No fish have legs. Having a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, as they claim shows it evolved into you, just shows it had a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, i.e. minor variations such as we see constantly in nature. It doesn't show legs. . Though evolutionists want to tell us Tik evolved into a tetrapod amphibian with the cutsey nickname of "fishapod", ichthyologists call it a lobe finned FISH. Evolutionism presents theories that have no data and ignores the real data. Dont let evo-think rob you of your common sense and common knowledge about fish. Maybe read The Emperor's New Clothes. . The person who discovered Tik was Neil Shubin. (He claims to have predicted its discovery but I have seen no literature supporting that claim before the find. When I ask others, who believe the claim, to provide documentation, they never respond.) In his book Your Inner Fish he says himself that there is no way to be sure Tik was a transition of any kind. But he says that, if not, "something like it" was. . The evidence he presents for something like it? Zero. So, that's the big data showing you supposedly are a fish update? One incredibly fragmented, very incomplete, fossil which even its biggest supporter admits may not be a transition - while we are supposed to ignore the countless billions of fossils, and living exmples, that always show fish stay fish? . We have a planet overflowing with data! It shows fish in the real world and in the fossils. Fish never have had legs or even parts of legs. They stay fish. . Also, let's look at the artistic replicas of Tik that are pictured along with the fossil. Though the actual fossil has only small, close to the body, highly fragmented frontal fins, the artistic renditions show it with long, strong, muscular leg-like structuress as it makes its amazing "ascent" to land. Fictional artwork, including computer simulatioms which do not match the observable evidence, are consistently used to defend evoutionism. , Notice that one artist portrays something that looks like ground gripping, rounded, pads at the ends of the presumed legs. See any evidence for any of that in the fossil? Some replicas, including a grey one, show a tail! Even hind legs! See any such things on the fossil, which doesn't even have a back end? There are other art works that show snake-like tails. See any evidence for that on the fossil? . Now, one artist's fictional, small and flat, tail could presumably slide onto land. Also those artists who providced Tik with a snake- like tail present a scenario that makes a climb to land seem somewhat feasible. What about the tails lobe finned fish really have, however? Well, they have broad vertical tails - not exactly the kinds that would be most useful for climbs to land. . Let's look at what some secular scientists have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism. . We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said.... "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331. . Now I hasten to add that in his next sentence Mueller went on to say "Nevertheless we can infer..." to support evolutionism anyway. That's how it goes in the politically correct, fiercely self protective, orthodox world of Neo Darwinisn. If the hard fought for research data doesn't agree with the sacred cow theory, no problem - just "infer" something that has goes in the exact opposite direction of what the data showed. . Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing. . As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc. . But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) a new genus. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past. Why don't we see any species transitioning to a new genus today? . Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution. . Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. "We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions." . "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) . "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.) . "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin) . On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts . Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. kzread.info/dash/bejne/Znx51M-pZbPgodo.html . Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.

the frog evolves from temnospondyls amphibians fron the carboniferous period, the family amphibamidae with genus from amphibamus and gerobatrachus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibamidae

Caecilian salamander newt olm toad frog bullfrog tree frog rheobatrachus poison-dart frog eleuth tadpole axolotl

Not reptiles but amniotes (synapsids aren’t reptiles

Is Evolution of Primates next?

@taskforce3833

6 жыл бұрын

the de-volution of mankind should be next :)

@psalm1tree466

6 жыл бұрын

Some say lungfish are evidence of fish to amphibian evolution. Notice they are called FISH. What evidence can you cite showing they ever have been, or ever will be, anything but lungfish? Further, how could they have anything to do with the supposed transition of fish to tetrapods in the distant past, since they live in the present as fish? The other example that is supposed to be convincing is Tiktaalik. Take a quick peek at Tiktaalik's fossil and have your eyes opened to the actual facts. www.google.com/search?q=tiktaalik+fossil&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=3h3LRBfeemp57M%253A%252CJfQpmsce0MgauM%252C_&usg=__r48ClG1TAIW07mlLWT9C6BOw5Yw%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj96M2C5rTaAhVO2FMKHR3mA9oQ9QEIYjAK&biw=1366&bih=637#imgrc=3h3LRBfeemp57 Notice it does not even have any fossilized material for the hind end, "legs", or even a fin, there. The highly fragmented frontal fins are mostly missing and going in a horizontal direction. not a vertical direction as would be needed for legs. (Frankly, when some claim to see legs forming on that fossil I have to laugh. It's knee slapping hilarious.) See any evidence - you know, what real science uses - that water breathing lungs are turning into air breathing lungs? . Lobe finned fish don't have legs. No fish have legs. Having a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, as they claim shows it evolved into you, just shows it had a bigger pelvis and shoulder girdle, i.e. minor variations such as we see constantly in nature. It doesn't show legs. . Though evolutionists want to tell us Tik evolved into a tetrapod amphibian with the cutsey nickname of "fishapod", ichthyologists call it a lobe finned FISH. Evolutionism presents theories that have no data and ignores the real data. Dont let evo-think rob you of your common sense and common knowledge about fish. Maybe read The Emperor's New Clothes. . The person who discovered Tik was Neil Shubin. (He claims to have predicted its discovery but I have seen no literature supporting that claim before the find. When I ask others, who believe the claim, to provide documentation, they never respond.) In his book Your Inner Fish he says himself that there is no way to be sure Tik was a transition of any kind. But he says that, if not, "something like it" was. . The evidence he presents for something like it? Zero. So, that's the big data showing you supposedly are a fish update? One incredibly fragmented, very incomplete, fossil which even its biggest supporter admits may not be a transition - while we are supposed to ignore the countless billions of fossils, and living exmples, that always show fish stay fish? . We have a planet overflowing with data! It shows fish in the real world and in the fossils. Fish never have had legs or even parts of legs. They stay fish. . Also, let's look at the artistic replicas of Tik that are pictured along with the fossil. Though the actual fossil has only small, close to the body, highly fragmented frontal fins, the artistic renditions show it with long, strong, muscular leg-like structuress as it makes its amazing "ascent" to land. Fictional artwork, including computer simulatioms which do not match the observable evidence, are consistently used to defend evoutionism. . Now, one artist's fictional, small and flat, tail could presumably slide onto land. Also those artists who providced Tik with a snake- like tail present a scenario that makes a climb to land seem somewhat feasible. What about the tails lobe finned fish really have, however? Well, they have broad vertical tails - not exactly the kinds that would be most useful for climbs to land. . Let's look at what some secular scientists have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism. . We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said.... "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331. . Now I hasten to add that in his next sentence Mueller went on to say "Nevertheless we can infer..." to support evolutionism anyway. That's how it goes in the politically correct, fiercely self protective, orthodox world of Neo Darwinisn. If the hard fought for research data doesn't agree with the sacred cow theory, no problem - just "infer" something that has goes in the exact opposite direction of what the data showed. . Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing. . As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. It shuffles pre existing information or may cause a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc. . But, if you can, give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS. In other words show that a species went to the next level in the Animal Kingdom (ditto for plants) a new family. There are trillions of life forms on this planet. We're told it happened in the unverifiable past. Why don't we see any species transitioning to a new family today? . Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution. . Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169. "We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions." . "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100) . "The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.) . "Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." (Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin) . On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts . Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. kzread.info/dash/bejne/Znx51M-pZbPgodo.html . Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.

@georgeheath62

5 жыл бұрын

Psalm1Tree nobody asked you to write that, maybe pay attention to what you read before you even bother us with your beliefs

@emilatik8581

5 жыл бұрын

@@psalm1tree466.... Lol. Just lol, what a genuine, per definition and realistic pseudo-fantasy/dream you kiv in with those radical religious, pseudo-goodhearted-religious,genuinely irrational, delusional, twisted minded and medival age thinking pun thoughts and points of view, but yeah that's you being all happy irrationalist.. And pseudo-science give me a huge genuine break, yeah in that mirror you saw yourself, when point that out, byefelicia ...lol😊😉😎🤟🤙💪🔥💥💎🌈🌈 Lol.. .......... Lol......

@psalm1tree466

5 жыл бұрын

@@emilatik8581and ryan heath You have done the usual in YT evolution defense. That is, you say absolutely zero based on science. Of course you evaded trying to refute anything I said. Of course you evaded my request for evidence completely. As for you Emil, you do what is also typical in YT defense by dishing out irrelevant, and frankly not very articulate, meaningless insults. You will both shortly go on mute as neither of you has anything to say. May you both actually learn how to think and not to just have...faith....in the religion of evolution. For any who have eyes to see, though, before I go I will leave data - you know, what real science uses - to show how absurd "evolution" is. Are you willing to take a serious and open minded look outside the box? If nothing else you can hear what the creationists are really saying, not the spin about what they are saying. On this web page you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, and other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts?page=41 Are you aware that more and more blood cells, blood vessels and soft stretchy materials are being found in dino bones? Forensic science and common sense tell us such things could not last for more than a few thousand years. Go to Genesispark to see ancient art depictions of dinos from around the world. My fave is the stegosaurus carved on a 1,000 year old Cambodian temple.www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ That site has lots of info on soft tissues and blood cells being found in dino bones, and historical reports of dino type creatures, including some from the famous historian Herodotus and from Alexander the Great. All information is gleaned from secular sources. Mary Schweitzer was the first of many to find blood cells and stretchy material in dino bones. Some cite her theory that such materials could last for 70 million or so years. Try to find a scrap of observable, scientific, data to support that theory, or any others like it. In evolutionism when the data disagrees with the theory then you are given another theory which also disagrees with the data. There is real data from forensic science, based on chemistry and biology, making it obvious that such materials could not last for millions of years. And...let's get real. See Don Patton's The Fossil Record and many others. In this link he uses the fossil record to place evolutionary and creation predictions side by side. You can see for yourself what the real record of the rocks shows: kzread.info/dash/bejne/mYejyJizj7HVodY.html ThomasKindell's vids are great, especially Thermodynamic Evidence for Creation where, in the first 10 minutes you hear quotes from prominent evoutionists like: "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." kzread.info/dash/bejne/e2Wt1tFpXd2YkrQ.html Wazooloo vids, particularly The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution and So Ya Think Yer A Chimp are full of scientific facts presented in an often humorous way. kzread.info/dash/bejne/n56F1tOgY9zfms4.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/a4581MWyaM-fk7g.html This vid goes over the Ashley Phosphate fossil beds which show a vast, 18 inch deep, jumble of fossils including those from dinos, people, rabbits, horses, rhinos, whales and on and on. kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZqZ1xtqcYa2xeKQ.html Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. kzread.info/dash/bejne/Znx51M-pZbPgodo.html . Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys gives scientific evidences for why people believe in a young, yes young, earth. Check it out and see: kzread.info/dash/bejne/n6OjqrWRhLWYgqg.html And regarding the speed of light "problem", there are many unproven assumptions about light. It was always assumed, for instance, that the speed of light is constant. Now some secular scientists are saying it is slowing down. Two scientists, one an atheist astronomer in Russia, and one an astro physicist in America, have independently calculated that the speed of light may recently have been 10 million times faster than it is today. However, here is another perspective. We have found that space, as in outer space, is stretchy. Several times in the Bible we are told that the Almighty stretched out the Heavens. This would mean the light from stars got stretched out, too, thus creating a false impression of distant time for light travel. (And, anyway, the Bible never even gives an age for the universe, only ages of the earth.) Great geological, archaeological, linguistic, mathematical and historical reports supporting the Flood and the Ark. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qWmbpLWOdN2dos4.html You are not a goo through the zoo ape update. You were created in the image and likeness of the Almighty Creator Who loves you. Why are you trading in those astounding truths of who you are for pseudoscience fairy tales that even secular scientists can't agree on? Rhetorical Q.

Why have so many gone extinct!?😫😭

@muhamadsayyidabidin3906

4 жыл бұрын

Amphibian are vulnerable to environmental change. Across earth history many amphibian gone extinct because of environmental change. Maybe human didn't hunt them but disease and environmental change because of human activity are deathly to them

Subnautica PDA voice be like

The secont comentary

양서류들의 똑같은 진화 마지막 이야기

@LovelyAngel.

4 жыл бұрын

김준영 No, you cannot nuke frogs

olm is native to europe

Gg

I love your videos, but the robotic voices you use...are kind of annoying.

Жыл бұрын

I know, I have found a better one since !