"I've beenon the internet lately and seen video of people being healded from desease and actually growing out legs in the name of Jesus". This guy is the reason the TV preacher has his own private Jet.
No that depends on if the person who is browsing it can determine what is absolute bullshit or not, then things that look interesting has the know-how to research multiple findings on the subject an come up with thier own unbiast critically thought outcome.
mattyy101 they were pointing out that when you word it that way “I saw this thing on the internet” it indicates this person is probably not a detail oriented researcher type.
A conspiracy theorist can see something online, or read something online and it can still be hidden in terms of being available to the general public. Like how technology we receive is always behind in what is actually attainable at the time. How the government and military industrial complex is always said to have technology 20 to 30 years ahead of what the general public can obtain. Plus they can make more money by giving out technology a little at a time, to maximize their profits, and to stay ahead of everyone in the society. Most people don't search things beyond MSM online and on TV. So it is possible to research thing and conclude something is being hidden from us. WikiLeaks has documents proving such things.
@@adamcarbo73 Not saying that governments out there are not hiding anything deliberately. They are and it is not a secret that they do this. It is called protecting intellectual property. As soon as something is publicly revealed it will be copied. So it makes a lot of sense to hide the internal methods or procedures for ground breaking cutting edge products. No conspiracy at all. Just good common business sense. Of course the military have technology ahead of the mainstream. They spend trillions of dollars and hire the brightest people to create this tech. Most of it then gets passed on to the consumer once it has outlived it military advantage. Where do you think a good percentage of our current technology came from? Are you actually suggesting that if the military comes up with a new tech they should immediately make it available to the common man? If so then I would suggest you have very limited knowledge of warfare or technological advantages. So where are these conspiracies? The fact that it is well known that governments and military deliberately keep things secret means it can not be a conspiracy as we know they keep the secrets. The fact they keep the secrets for the benefit of their country means it makes sense to keep these secrets. Wondering how old you are. I have a feeling you were not old enough to remember the cold war and the espionage going on at that time. How about the massive damage caused to the German forces in world war II when the Allies cracked Germany's biggest secret - the enigma machine. So yes people can make up some conspiracy theory about anything - that does not mean there is any truth to it or sanity involved in the conspiracy does it.
I served with the 1st Battalion, 1st Marines in Vietnam. Was wounded twice, and I never prayed to god because I knew no one was listening. Saw plenty if combat near the DMZ in 67 & 68. Been on 12 operations, been in over 50 firefights . Should have been killed half a dozen times, but sheer luck saved me..--not god. I was the Atheist in a foxhole.
Thank you for your service. But I was given the impression foxholes are full of the faithful. If these people were right, your position would have been a cakewalk. Thanks again.
Exactly. Would ANYone NOT change their mind on something, if it was shown, right in front of them, that they were, previously, completely objectively wrong ? ( ok, bad example, theists etc probably wouldnt 🤦♀️ ) Heaps of scientists etc WANT to be the one that find something that overturns/ expands the current model, Cos that would bring them fame & $$$$. Its just REALLY hard to find something that goes against the millions of individual pieces of PHYSICAL stuff, the evidence, that is already here. And even those whole new ideas etc STILL don't change everything that has ALREADY been found, & so is already in front of us. It just refines it, adds to it. Makes it closer to reality. Like a better map of a place. 🤔 I dont get how they think evolution, science etc is an atheist "belief". Or how they think it is anything other than WHAT is happening & HOW its happening. Literally just a map of a place, except its a "map" of everything that weve found & seen happen.. Thats all it is. A better map. Believe what ever you want ( hopefully something that matches the real world, not fantasy-dreams ) & whatever is around you just HAS to logically fit your belief. Or your "beliefs" arent real, & so should be thrown out for physically safer "beliefs". ( 🤔As ALL non-real beliefs can be physically dangerous as they teach your brain its ok to ignore & override physical reality/ safety, in favour of your imagined non-reality.) 😁🌏☮️ Ps- And he is literally doing the thing that they say everyone else is doing. They are picking WHO to listen to, because its the one that fits his pre-decided position. 🤦♀️
Science is good, but the problem is atheists tend to falsely think that science is the ONLY way to knowledge. That's just false. A deductively valid & sound argument has a conclusion that's necessarily true. That's stronger evidence than anything in science can be, because science is provisional.
Another problem is atheists often conflate the idea of "science" with "whatever mainstream academia says in their current consensus and peer-reviewed papers." That's not what science is.
@@barnacleboi2595 There will be just as many gullible, stupid people. They will just latch onto other, non-religious concepts, like post-modernist nonsense.
I love science. When I was at university studying neuroscience - there was healthy competition amongst academics to take ideas, scrutinise them and push our understanding to the next level. It was never about safeguarding individual pieces of work - it was about discovering new details that added to our understanding.
Haha he's simultaneously calling a peer-reviewed scientific finding "illogical" and trying to call the miraculous leg growing trick "logical" lol dude's got his logic circuits COMPLETELY backwards! 🤣
After seeing the lord of the rings films and how they used perspective to make the hobbits look smaller, I’m stunned anyone would be convinced of this.
Creationists get their facts by studying an ancient book of magical fairy-tales, while scientists get their facts by studying reality. High iron content in the sample preserved the tissue, which was basically petrified. This explanation was confirmed with an experiment.
@@kentonbaird1723 "You'll find very few creationists that have actually read any part of the bible that didn't come from an apologist's Facebook post or UA-cam preaching." They read the Bible.
@@kentonbaird1723 I was a Christian for eighteen years, and everyone read Genesis, which is the basis of Creationism. That included myself. It's not that they don't know the creation account, it's that they don't know much about the evidence that disproves Genesis while supporting scientific explanations.
@@kentonbaird1723 I think you need to do spend more time studying Creationist apologists, if you think they don't carefully study what the Bible has to say about natural and human history.
Matt is so adept at logicking. I need ear/mind bleach every time I listen to one of these conversations, but I've gotta give kudos to the religious folks: your brain washes real good.
There really need to be better standards for homeschool. They should be required to teach evolution & the fact that the earth is a globe. And the fact that vaccines work.
@@VernonChitlen - Apparently you don't have enough knowledge about chemistry & evolution to understand how it could happen. And, thinking that magic makes more sense than chemistry? Lol Wow. You are not a rational thinker. What are you going to say when we DO create life in a lab? Because that's exactly where we're headed. Just like when we corrected theists about the solar system, the shape of the earth, the age of the earth & evolution, we will eventually correct them about abiogenesis as well. What will you say to defend your pretend answers then?
@@jonquist9950We were required to learn something about evolution, but it was framed as, "here's something we're required to teach you. Scientists who are so arrogant that they don't think they need God came up with this idea. Micro-evolution is real, but we have no reason to think that macro-evolution is real. Here's one time some unscrupulous scientists faked an experiment to demonstrate macro-evolution." I was vaccinated. They actually offered flu shots at church every year. I was taught that the Earth was a globe. We weren't young Earth creationists. More like, in the seven days of creation, God probably used the term "day" to help us understand. Who knows what His units of time are.
And in the Smithsonian article the palaeontologist Schweitzer, a Christian, says she's incensed by how Creationists are accusing her of 'hiding her evidence' that dinosaurs are merely thousands of years old. Good grief.
We are in fact all *CREATIONISTS* having to explain how in the finitude of past time everything came from absolutely nothing. If it wasnt so sad and tragic it would be laugible. All the closeminded pseudo Intelligent, self defined, semi evolved apes ridiculing religion albeit the only one that claims Creation ex nihilo. As if it somehow disproves the need for a Creator. And here they are day after day, obsessed with the God they don't believe in, wasting endless hours of their meaningless nano cosmic existence, consoling each other in the dark dungeons of cyberspace. With the only hope of what- never proving they're merely future worm fodder. No wonder we committed believers live happier healthier, longer and more productive lives. *For the record, we are all creationists.* having to explain how everything came from absolutely nothing in the finitude of past time. But why let that minor fact spoil your delusions of grandeur and fleeting hedonistic lifestyle?
@@Gericho49 I think you should call the Atheist Experience - then you could have your own video on youtube being ripped apart. If you think that you have just proven God with an argument that we must have a creator, then you are wasting everyone's time.
@@capitalb5889 Hi Bas, Thanks for the facts-based, point by point rebuttal, aka referral to some 3rd party website where atheists supposedly have no burden of proof. Do u really think these career atheists and perrenial cynics know everything about science and philosophy? If great minds like Hawking and Krauss' have to invent fanciful theories to explain how everything came from absolutely nothing in the finitude of past time, do u think any of the millions who read my argument can do any better. Here's my challenge- if nothing once existed and something exists now then give me a purely natural explanation of how existence came from non existence? A Nobel prize could be yours!
@@Gericho49 as there was no one alive to witness the Big Bang and it was a once in a universe event, it may be difficult to ascertain the exact cause. A God is not a very plausible explanation because we would then have the question of what created God. Just because we do not currently understand something does not mean that God did it.
@@Gericho49 Its laughable that you are expecting a point by point rebuttal, when your post was nothing other than denigrating and insulting to people you have a natural bias towards. You literally did nothing but go on and insult people you have never met, because they don't share the same fairy tales as you. Scientists dedicate their lives towards understanding and explaining the world around them, but simpletons like you who have a huge case of Dunning Krueger and would rather engage with non-experts, because you know a real expert will bury you in detailed evidence and information. In the end your reasoning and evidence all resorts back to a 2000 year old book thats been thru 3 language translations. I actually pity you, because you are scared and too timid to see the world for what it is and rather take the egotistical route and bury your head in the sand.
"hi I'm a moron and have unfettered access to the internet, I've seen some video I don't understand and now I have enough knowledge to take on the world... Here let me make a phone call, I'll show you, watch this......."
Actually others have found blood cells. Where do u think the iron she says preserved the tissue is found- in hemoglobin!!! Her 2 year experiment involved spiking the tissue with fresh chicken blood with an anti clotting agent, EDTA. Any biochemist like myself would consider this dishonest at best!
@@Gericho49 Then show these others that have found blood cells. *"Where do u think the iron she says preserved the tissue is found- in hemoglobin"* which is evidence that the iron is not in the cells any more.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 dear diluded atheist, there are numerous studies of C14 and blood cell findings in dinosaur stretchy sold tissue. Ever heard of Google? I have no problem with such findings including the numerous artifavts and accurate cave drawings of many cultures interacting with various species of dinosaurs, don't u?
Another caller that proves religiosity directly correlates with ignorance. Science is scrutinized, that’s the point. These ignorant adults make me so sad.
This guy Brian gives a great seminar in how to ask a question and not listen to the answer - rule # 2 in "How to be an Idiot" or its companion volume "How to be Willfully Ignorant"
This is what happens when you appeal to your pastors view of what science is instead of scientists. It's like taking legal advice from your dry cleaner.
Completely agree. If I need advice on imaginary friends and how to believe a host of unsubstantiated claims, I will talk to the religious. Otherwise, their expertise doesn't apply to anything else. Should I pray to stop that engine oil leak or get my car to a garage. Should I pray for a broke. Finger to heal or see a doctor of medicine. If I believe in a magical sky daddy that will answer my prayers should I see a preacher who will only make it worse or a mental health professional who will help me with my delusions. Oops, not delusions, faith. You can't criticize faith. Its sacred. Except other faiths than your own.
Her being concerned about raising it to the scientific community is like any kid in school worried about raising their hand to answer a question in class. She was nervous about being wrong and being wrong or mistaken in front of her peers and criticized.
I find it striking that during the call, the caller changes his narrative from "she was nervous to present her findings" to "they brutally attacked her", because the hosts didn't seem to be too bothered by the former narrative. Shame the hosts didn't pick up on that.
Imagine if Brian was alive in the early 1900s. "The Wright Brothers just invented a flying machine!" Brian: "But that CONTRADICTS what we know about science! That can't happen!"
Poor Brian, I think he needs to go back a listen to what she really said, perhaps a couple of times. She was worried that she had made a huge mistake that she didn't pick up, so was going to be shot down due to bad science. But it was good science, she is a good scientist, there wasn't any mistakes, now we know that cells can be preserved over millions of years under certain conditions. She is now famous and will have her name taught at university for ever more.
Honestly, believing in god or gods would have been perfectly reasonable way back then. Humans didnt have much science or logical thought thousands of years ago. Couple that with the fact that everyone is scared shitless of death. Makes perfect sense for early humans to make up stories about how an afterlife exists because its extremely comforting and it gives them a purpose. The concept of god is a good thing to have if you arent strong enough to face the harsh truth of death.
Manuel Garcia Thousands if not millions of people have died or have been killed behind the belief or faith of “Gods” so I respectfully disagree. Religion and faith of “Gods” is hurtful to all mankind.
@@barnacleboi2595 No, believing something that is not true is NEVER a good thing. The concept of a god, most of the time comes attached with afterlife concepts. Afterlife concepts are one of the leading causes of suicide.
The aunt of my ex-father in law's first wife's step-brother grew a third leg after she prayed to Zarathustra! That is why I am today a devout follower of this proven deity.
Or or orrrrrr, maybe she was nervous to have feedback from the scientific community the same way I get nervous when I wait for test results. Justifiable and no conspiracy behind it
Mary schweitzer actually got the Elizabeth 'Betsy' Nicholls Award for Excellence in Paleontology for her discovery, and since then has had scholarships created in her honor, and even had an extinct bird named after her. She was not ostracized or anything, she was "ridiculed" by some scientists when the discovery was first announced because it was an extraordinary claim, but then when it was confirmed she was literally celebrated by the scientific community and awarded.
This is pretty well-known, but I didn't see it in the comments so I thought I'd explain how Mary's findings are being misrepresented here. *There was no blood* in the fossilised bone. There were traces of iron preserved in the shape of red blood cells, which contain haemoglobin, which contain iron. There was absolutely no remaining organic matter. The term "soft tissue" generally refers to any tissue in the body which is not hardened, like bone or enamel. When palaeontologists use the term, however, they are usually referring to _fossil evidence_ of the tissue, not the tissue itself. This was such a remarkable find because the conditions necessary for preservation of soft tissue structures are so incredibly rare. The mechanism by which this happened is well understood, and nobody in the scientific community ridiculed Dr Schweitzer; the initial doubt was entirely warranted, given that fossil evidence of individual cells was literally unprecedented.
Years ago I was willing to accept that God created life and everything and that evolution was the way God did it. However my evangelical friends told me that I had to accept creationism their way or I could not call myself a Christian. Their way or no way. So I chose "no way". Now I am a firm atheist. At this time I find it very difficult to listen to any evangelical talk on any topic, be it religion, politics and especially on morality. I believe that lies destroy faith. Evangelicals have lied to me, so I have no faith in anything they say.
So now u believe that everything was created from nothing by nothing in the finitude of past time?. Makes perfect sense for the many smug, self defined, semi-evolved apes who waste endless hours on YT trying prove they have nothing to prove.
You certainly have a way of filling in the blanks. I do not recall saying anything about what I believe. I only said that I do not believe what evangelical Christians say because they tell far too many lies. @@Gericho49
Dear@anti-anti-intellectual x such an apt pseudonym for the many young gutter-mouthed faceless frauds who think that insults and profanities substitute for a facts-based, point by point rebuttal. As for ur profound utterance that the universe came from a singularity or perhaps an infinite regress of multiverses, is superfluous to the need to explain the origin of matter from nothing in the finitude of past time. Perhaps if u read Hawking and Krauss' feeble attempts to explain how everything came from non existence, u might just understand why a cause beyond time, space and matter is the only plausible explanation. Then I'd be only happy to discuss the nature of the reality, one that u not only don't believe in but apparently hate. But hang in there young fella, while there's life there's hope.
So my friends, correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt Darwin lament about minds evolved from lower animals being at all trustworthy? Apparently, honesty for us "evolved apes" within Darwin's ideology would hardly be a good survival strategy..So if morality is merely doing what is fashionable in some culture at some point in history, then the Nazi master race for example, had the legislated right to rid society of the genetically deformed and impure races, the aged and mentally ill, right? After all, survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle! Even a thief knows when they are being duped, since we are all given an innate sense of moral worth and values. Moreover, *we know that somethings are really wrong even if everybody is wrong. And somethings are right even if nobody is right.* For a committed believer however, deliberately lying is knowing that such activities are soul destroying and will gain nothing in this life and far, far less in the next. It is ironic and rather pathetic when some young cynic or denier pontificates about perceived evil in individuals or past cultures with all the evangelical zeal he despises in believers. Especially, when morality for him, is merely a spin-off from socio-biological evolution. So how often do u buck the herd morality for personal gain and self gratification?
He didn’t know the woman’s name, what field she was in, what she discovered, or what it’s practical applicabtion and says she was “brutally attacked” because she faced peer review LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! Shows his mindset.
Just watched a video where marry herself said that the only people that made her feel threatened were creationists. But the comments on that from creationists said that she's being manipulated and told to say that.
The way that he cannot answer Matts question “is it true that science is bias against new information that might upset the status quo?” is brutally frightening for the future.
Brian wants to support the Creationist claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs lived alongside humans. He regards the discovery of dinosaur blood as evidence that dinosaurs lived more recently than previously thought. It's a hypothesis easily disproved by other evidence, but Brian thinks it's conclusive and that the scientific community has conspired to dismiss the finding. The scientist who found the blood was nervous (I saw the BBC programme) because her results would attract considerable scrutiny (a minor paradigm shift) and so she'd have to get her facts absolutely right when she published... which she did. Thanks to her, we now know that it's occasionally possible to get DNA traces from bones that are 65 million years old. It's life after death, Jim, but not as we know it.
I have had encounters with people like this guy a few times over the years. They have a certain quality about them, it isn't hard to detect in a conversation, it's like being stupid but it's worse.
9.20 -- "No...I understand what you are saying...but now I'm going to start over and see if you buy what I'm saying the second time you hear it." /sarcasm
It may, in fact, contradict the idea that tissue can't survive, under normal circumstances, but that doesn't, in any way, contradict evolution. It just expands our understanding of what can or cannot happened based on certain conditions.
the woman scientist who discovered blood in dinosaur flesh was not worried about submitting it for peer review, in fact, she's a a bible believing Christian, also, the "blood" in the "flesh" was after it was treated with EXTREME chemicals in order to reverse the fossilization process severely, they didnt just dig up a dinosaur fossil and cut into it and have it bleed. She is a great scientist who did amazing work in the field. Young Earth Creationists consistently misrepresent her work and its disgusting.
What they don't say though is that the gap is widening but the base is still going up. Poor people are making more too, just not as much as rich people. I'm okay with that, we need rich people and as many as we can get. Nobody ever worked for a poor person.
The lack of evidence isn't actually the biggest problem even (although it is a big issue on itself); the fact that religion is made to control people, is rather obvious from the get go, if you look at it from a distance.
I don't know how the hosts are so patient. I run into closed minded people like that often and I straight away say that I am not going to debate anything with them. I do not accept any literature based on pseudoscience, religion, or and fallacy based philosophy. Have a great day everyone.
I have to laugh at the advertisements before these videos. Some are for religious colleges and things, but the funniest ones are for Red Lobster! Is it all the talk of the Old Testament laws about shellfish or what? =)
After working 30 years in science I can say the scientific communities has high standards but is open to new data if the research is solid and poses the thorough scrutiny. Brian is misinformed....
My bf works as a researcher. Science is extremely rigorous. He has had great results and papers written but there has NEVER been a time where he was able to publish it with no issue. He constantly gets rejections, revisions, etc.. And that is how it SHOULD be.
as someone who used to do the "leg growing out" thing, most people who are doing this do not mean to do it dishonestly, it is most likely an ideomotor effect however
I used to be a christian and I fe for that leg thing. I remember I was shocked. It bothers me more now that I'm not and I really trusted the family I was with and Im still hurt by all the deception in the bible and religions.
Creationists - What they do: Tell each other what to believe according to whatever "holy" book they follow, reject anything that disagrees with their established beliefs. What they think of Scientists: "Scientists tell people what to believe and reject anything that disagrees with their established beliefs." Scientists - What they do: Investigate and test things, including things that seem to contradict what they've previously discovered, to see what is real. What they think of Creationists: "I wish like hell those buggers would actually investigate and test things!"
they only found the heme part of the hemeglobin with deals with oxidation and is a non-protien part of the red blood cell. It also caused the red coloration of the cell.
Such as the infamous case of the Piltdown Man, earthshattering discoveries should be met with appropriately strong skepticism. Hoaxes, forgeries, and false interpretation in paleontology do happen. Especially those coming from amateurs, fossil hunters, and collectors. Irritator Challengeri was a spinosaurid dinosaur named after the frustration of restoring and classifying it after fossil traders altered the holotype specimen. Substantial money can be made by having unique or impressive finds.
In the sweet sweet summer of 1978 I tuned my radio to WSKW AM in Scowhegan Maine where I heard Billy Joel sing Only The Good Die Young. At that point a light bulb flashed in my head and I said to myself Wait,and god is a just god?
When I was in my mother's kitchen, eating ice cream, I asked her where she got it and before she could answer, the angel of the Lord appeared and told me. It's very strange that nobody believes me, yet my mother was there and she saw the angel too. Why do people assume that this never happened? Two people saw it !
I hope your post is being sarcastic. But for fun, let's say you and your mother saw something. Eye witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence for science. So you would have to have something else to back your story. Since you didn't present that, I can only assume you don't have it and thus, no way to prove you saw anything, let alone an angel. BTW do either of you take drugs?
I'm sad now :( if I could debunk a long term scientific theory I'd have my noble prize and he set for life. As if the whole scientific community wouldn't even look in to the claim and if I'm wrong then fine. That would be backed by science. If it were true it's not like every scientist of that specific field would dismiss it. They would test it and that would be great for them... Imagine the first new discoveries of a newly found theory?
"I've beenon the internet lately and seen video of people being healded from desease and actually growing out legs in the name of Jesus".
This guy is the reason the TV preacher has his own private Jet.
So True ..............
"By god" You're so right.... ;)
ALWAYS right .................@@Matzyboy
🤣🤣
i-say-yah 867 says i can own the world and tax everyone and they will all work until they are too old and damaged to enjoy life
"You don’t begin, by believing. You begin by investigation."
This speaks volumes.
What’s the point of believing without evidence?
@@Dan-Martin
Absolutely.
"Volumes". Speaking a single volume wouldn't be very much ;)
@@joelonsdale
God bless you my brother. 🤣🤣🤣
Thank you mate, really.
@@arkdark5554 You are welcome, except now you've fixed it, it's ME that looks like the idiot! I will carry that burden for you my brother....
This dude blows my mind. Makes me wonder how I grew up around these kinds of people but were able to grow out of it.
Intellectual honesty?
Your common sense hits overdrive around idiots 🤣🤣 that's what i like the think happens.
Whom are you referring to?
*was
@@supreme5580 people he grew up with obviously
"I've been looking at the Internet" should be a red flag.
Hahaa totally 😂
No that depends on if the person who is browsing it can determine what is absolute bullshit or not, then things that look interesting has the know-how to research multiple findings on the subject an come up with thier own unbiast critically thought outcome.
mattyy101 they were pointing out that when you word it that way “I saw this thing on the internet” it indicates this person is probably not a detail oriented researcher type.
Yes the internet is SO reliable
Lol the internet is a TOOL, pass me the left handed internet and a long weight
I love the conspiracy theorists who see something and then say "the evil scientists are hiding this thing I saw!"
A conspiracy theorist can see something online, or read something online and it can still be hidden in terms of being available to the general public.
Like how technology we receive is always behind in what is actually attainable at the time. How the government and military industrial complex is always said to have technology 20 to 30 years ahead of what the general public can obtain. Plus they can make more money by giving out technology a little at a time, to maximize their profits, and to stay ahead of everyone in the society.
Most people don't search things beyond MSM online and on TV. So it is possible to research thing and conclude something is being hidden from us. WikiLeaks has documents proving such things.
@@adamcarbo73 Not saying that governments out there are not hiding anything deliberately. They are and it is not a secret that they do this. It is called protecting intellectual property. As soon as something is publicly revealed it will be copied. So it makes a lot of sense to hide the internal methods or procedures for ground breaking cutting edge products.
No conspiracy at all. Just good common business sense.
Of course the military have technology ahead of the mainstream. They spend trillions of dollars and hire the brightest people to create this tech. Most of it then gets passed on to the consumer once it has outlived it military advantage.
Where do you think a good percentage of our current technology came from?
Are you actually suggesting that if the military comes up with a new tech they should immediately make it available to the common man? If so then I would suggest you have very limited knowledge of warfare or technological advantages.
So where are these conspiracies? The fact that it is well known that governments and military deliberately keep things secret means it can not be a conspiracy as we know they keep the secrets. The fact they keep the secrets for the benefit of their country means it makes sense to keep these secrets.
Wondering how old you are. I have a feeling you were not old enough to remember the cold war and the espionage going on at that time. How about the massive damage caused to the German forces in world war II when the Allies cracked Germany's biggest secret - the enigma machine.
So yes people can make up some conspiracy theory about anything - that does not mean there is any truth to it or sanity involved in the conspiracy does it.
LOL LOL
Wow can we be any more comfortable with official narratives?
DUDE!! YOU MADE ME WET MY PANTS LAUGHING. LOL LOL
While a combat medic in Vietnam I was never asked by the wounded to pray that the bleeding would stop
Lack of faith.
That's a good thing by the way.
I'm with you on that, brother....
Thank you for your service to this nation, perhaps one day we can return the favor.
I served with the 1st Battalion, 1st Marines in Vietnam. Was wounded twice, and I never prayed to god because I knew no one was listening. Saw plenty if combat near the DMZ in 67 & 68. Been on 12 operations, been in over 50 firefights . Should have been killed half a dozen times, but sheer luck saved me..--not god. I was the Atheist in a foxhole.
Thank you for your service.
But I was given the impression foxholes are full of the faithful. If these people were right, your position would have been a cakewalk.
Thanks again.
This guy is one of those "science is bad because it keeps changing it's mind". He has no idea that this is why science is so good.
Also: Science is bad because they don't immediately believe it when someone says something
Very well said. Science is constantly testing and refining itself. It isn't stuck over 2,000 years in the past.
Exactly.
Would ANYone NOT change their mind on something,
if it was shown, right in front of them,
that they were, previously, completely objectively wrong ?
( ok, bad example, theists etc probably wouldnt 🤦♀️ )
Heaps of scientists etc WANT to be the one that find something that overturns/ expands the current model,
Cos that would bring them fame & $$$$.
Its just REALLY hard to find something that goes against the millions of individual pieces of PHYSICAL stuff, the evidence, that is already here.
And even those whole new ideas etc STILL don't change everything that has ALREADY been found, & so is already in front of us.
It just refines it, adds to it. Makes it closer to reality.
Like a better map of a place.
🤔 I dont get how they think evolution, science etc is an atheist "belief".
Or how they think it is anything other than WHAT is happening & HOW its happening.
Literally just a map of a place, except its a "map" of everything that weve found & seen happen..
Thats all it is. A better map.
Believe what ever you want ( hopefully something that matches the real world, not fantasy-dreams )
& whatever is around you just HAS to logically fit your belief.
Or your "beliefs" arent real, & so should be thrown out for physically safer "beliefs".
( 🤔As ALL non-real beliefs can be physically dangerous as they teach your brain its ok to ignore & override physical reality/ safety, in favour of your imagined non-reality.)
😁🌏☮️
Ps- And he is literally doing the thing that they say everyone else is doing.
They are picking WHO to listen to, because its the one that fits his pre-decided position.
🤦♀️
Science is good, but the problem is atheists tend to falsely think that science is the ONLY way to knowledge.
That's just false. A deductively valid & sound argument has a conclusion that's necessarily true. That's stronger evidence than anything in science can be, because science is provisional.
Another problem is atheists often conflate the idea of "science" with "whatever mainstream academia says in their current consensus and peer-reviewed papers."
That's not what science is.
Call in a nutshell: I just believe things, so why don’t you?
Religion in general
Religion in a nutshell!
The good news is eventually, those gullible people will die out soon and we will be left with mostly logical thinkers...hopefully
@@barnacleboi2595 There will be just as many gullible, stupid people. They will just latch onto other, non-religious concepts, like post-modernist nonsense.
@@barnacleboi2595 iam really glad it will happen in my life
I love science. When I was at university studying neuroscience - there was healthy competition amongst academics to take ideas, scrutinise them and push our understanding to the next level. It was never about safeguarding individual pieces of work - it was about discovering new details that added to our understanding.
Aah. REAL science.
Haha he's simultaneously calling a peer-reviewed scientific finding "illogical" and trying to call the miraculous leg growing trick "logical" lol dude's got his logic circuits COMPLETELY backwards! 🤣
He's paying for a gold toilet in some tv evangelist's outhouse, as we speak...
I love how quickly they answered yes to if they were atheists because of lack of evidence lol
After seeing the lord of the rings films and how they used perspective to make the hobbits look smaller, I’m stunned anyone would be convinced of this.
Creationists get their facts by studying an ancient book of magical fairy-tales, while scientists get their facts by studying reality. High iron content in the sample preserved the tissue, which was basically petrified. This explanation was confirmed with an experiment.
For the most part, these common creationists don't even actually study their book.
@@kentonbaird1723 "You'll find very few creationists that have actually read any part of the bible that didn't come from an apologist's Facebook post or UA-cam preaching."
They read the Bible.
@@kentonbaird1723 I was a Christian for eighteen years, and everyone read Genesis, which is the basis of Creationism. That included myself. It's not that they don't know the creation account, it's that they don't know much about the evidence that disproves Genesis while supporting scientific explanations.
@@kentonbaird1723 I think you need to do spend more time studying Creationist apologists, if you think they don't carefully study what the Bible has to say about natural and human history.
@@kentonbaird1723 As a former Creationist myself, I read and studied the Bible on a daily basis.
Matt is so adept at logicking. I need ear/mind bleach every time I listen to one of these conversations, but I've gotta give kudos to the religious folks: your brain washes real good.
"You don't _begin_ by believing, you believe _based on sufficient evidence_ "
Too right mate.
You must all believe in my invisible magical friend, so let's talk about scientific conspiracies.
Ughh, this is the result of a generation of evangelical kids being home-schooled.
There really need to be better standards for homeschool. They should be required to teach evolution & the fact that the earth is a globe. And the fact that vaccines work.
@@VernonChitlen - Apparently you don't have enough knowledge about chemistry & evolution to understand how it could happen. And, thinking that magic makes more sense than chemistry? Lol Wow. You are not a rational thinker.
What are you going to say when we DO create life in a lab? Because that's exactly where we're headed. Just like when we corrected theists about the solar system, the shape of the earth, the age of the earth & evolution, we will eventually correct them about abiogenesis as well. What will you say to defend your pretend answers then?
Hey, I was one of those kids. I escaped. I'm fine now. Higher education saved me.
@@jonquist9950We were required to learn something about evolution, but it was framed as, "here's something we're required to teach you. Scientists who are so arrogant that they don't think they need God came up with this idea. Micro-evolution is real, but we have no reason to think that macro-evolution is real. Here's one time some unscrupulous scientists faked an experiment to demonstrate macro-evolution." I was vaccinated. They actually offered flu shots at church every year. I was taught that the Earth was a globe. We weren't young Earth creationists. More like, in the seven days of creation, God probably used the term "day" to help us understand. Who knows what His units of time are.
@@tremolo2109 I'm not knocking anyone for being home schooled, I'm knocking the parents doing it to their kids. I'm glad you got out, but a lot don't.
I can feel my brain cells dying off just listening to Brian.
Mate this was painful
Brian cellls
And in the Smithsonian article the palaeontologist Schweitzer, a Christian, says she's incensed by how Creationists are accusing her of 'hiding her evidence' that dinosaurs are merely thousands of years old. Good grief.
We are in fact all *CREATIONISTS* having to explain how in the finitude of past time everything came from absolutely nothing. If it wasnt so sad and tragic it would be laugible. All the closeminded pseudo Intelligent, self defined, semi evolved apes ridiculing religion albeit the only one that claims Creation ex nihilo. As if it somehow disproves the need for a Creator. And here they are day after day, obsessed with the God they don't believe in, wasting endless hours of their meaningless nano cosmic existence, consoling each other in the dark dungeons of cyberspace. With the only hope of what- never proving they're merely future worm fodder.
No wonder we committed believers live happier healthier, longer and more productive lives.
*For the record, we are all creationists.* having to explain how everything came from absolutely nothing in the finitude of past time. But why let that minor fact spoil your delusions of grandeur and fleeting hedonistic lifestyle?
@@Gericho49 I think you should call the Atheist Experience - then you could have your own video on youtube being ripped apart.
If you think that you have just proven God with an argument that we must have a creator, then you are wasting everyone's time.
@@capitalb5889 Hi Bas,
Thanks for the facts-based, point by point rebuttal, aka referral to some 3rd party website where atheists supposedly have no burden of proof. Do u really think these career atheists and perrenial cynics know everything about science and philosophy? If great minds like Hawking and Krauss' have to invent fanciful theories to explain how everything came from absolutely nothing in the finitude of past time, do u think any of the millions who read my argument can do any better. Here's my challenge- if nothing once existed and something exists now then give me a purely natural explanation of how existence came from non existence? A Nobel prize could be yours!
@@Gericho49 as there was no one alive to witness the Big Bang and it was a once in a universe event, it may be difficult to ascertain the exact cause. A God is not a very plausible explanation because we would then have the question of what created God.
Just because we do not currently understand something does not mean that God did it.
@@Gericho49 Its laughable that you are expecting a point by point rebuttal, when your post was nothing other than denigrating and insulting to people you have a natural bias towards. You literally did nothing but go on and insult people you have never met, because they don't share the same fairy tales as you. Scientists dedicate their lives towards understanding and explaining the world around them, but simpletons like you who have a huge case of Dunning Krueger and would rather engage with non-experts, because you know a real expert will bury you in detailed evidence and information. In the end your reasoning and evidence all resorts back to a 2000 year old book thats been thru 3 language translations. I actually pity you, because you are scared and too timid to see the world for what it is and rather take the egotistical route and bury your head in the sand.
"hi I'm a moron and have unfettered access to the internet, I've seen some video I don't understand and now I have enough knowledge to take on the world... Here let me make a phone call, I'll show you, watch this......."
No blood was found. She dissolved the bone to find a soft collagen like substance left. It turns out high iron levels aids its preservation.
and BTW she is a christian >
Actually others have found blood cells. Where do u think the iron she says preserved the tissue is found- in hemoglobin!!! Her 2 year experiment involved spiking the tissue with fresh chicken blood with an anti clotting agent, EDTA. Any biochemist like myself would consider this dishonest at best!
@@Gericho49 Then show these others that have found blood cells.
*"Where do u think the iron she says preserved the tissue is found- in hemoglobin"* which is evidence that the iron is not in the cells any more.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 dear diluded atheist, there are numerous studies of C14 and blood cell findings in dinosaur stretchy sold tissue. Ever heard of Google? I have no problem with such findings including the numerous artifavts and accurate cave drawings of many cultures interacting with various species of dinosaurs, don't u?
@@Gericho49 you are out of your mind, twat. You are just a big scammer.
Another caller that proves religiosity directly correlates with ignorance. Science is scrutinized, that’s the point. These ignorant adults make me so sad.
This guy Brian gives a great seminar in how to ask a question and not listen to the answer - rule # 2 in "How to be an Idiot" or its companion volume "How to be Willfully Ignorant"
This is what happens when you appeal to your pastors view of what science is instead of scientists. It's like taking legal advice from your dry cleaner.
I would definitely take the dry cleaners advice before I took the preacher's. 😂
Completely agree. If I need advice on imaginary friends and how to believe a host of unsubstantiated claims, I will talk to the religious. Otherwise, their expertise doesn't apply to anything else. Should I pray to stop that engine oil leak or get my car to a garage. Should I pray for a broke. Finger to heal or see a doctor of medicine. If I believe in a magical sky daddy that will answer my prayers should I see a preacher who will only make it worse or a mental health professional who will help me with my delusions. Oops, not delusions, faith. You can't criticize faith. Its sacred. Except other faiths than your own.
Her being concerned about raising it to the scientific community is like any kid in school worried about raising their hand to answer a question in class. She was nervous about being wrong and being wrong or mistaken in front of her peers and criticized.
As soon as you hear a caller say "We can all agree that....." then you KNOW there's some crazy shit coming.
"World view" does the same
I find it striking that during the call, the caller changes his narrative from "she was nervous to present her findings" to "they brutally attacked her", because the hosts didn't seem to be too bothered by the former narrative. Shame the hosts didn't pick up on that.
Imagine if Brian was alive in the early 1900s. "The Wright Brothers just invented a flying machine!" Brian: "But that CONTRADICTS what we know about science! That can't happen!"
Poor Brian, I think he needs to go back a listen to what she really said, perhaps a couple of times.
She was worried that she had made a huge mistake that she didn't pick up, so was going to be shot down due to bad science.
But it was good science, she is a good scientist, there wasn't any mistakes, now we know that cells can be preserved over millions of years under certain conditions.
She is now famous and will have her name taught at university for ever more.
It wasnt blood, it was a highly stable protein found in bone. Yes it is in blood, but she didn't find "blood".
It wasnt blood ,it was reconstituted connective proteins.
"I've been on the internet lately..."
You know a conversation's not going to go well when they open up with that.
The concept of “God” is the most hurtful and toxic lie ever told and taught to mankind.
Honestly, believing in god or gods would have been perfectly reasonable way back then. Humans didnt have much science or logical thought thousands of years ago. Couple that with the fact that everyone is scared shitless of death. Makes perfect sense for early humans to make up stories about how an afterlife exists because its extremely comforting and it gives them a purpose. The concept of god is a good thing to have if you arent strong enough to face the harsh truth of death.
Manuel Garcia Thousands if not millions of people have died or have been killed behind the belief or faith of “Gods” so I respectfully disagree. Religion and faith of “Gods” is hurtful to all mankind.
I disagree.
The most hurtful and toxic lie ever told, is that we cannot question religious claims.
@@barnacleboi2595
No, believing something that is not true is NEVER a good thing.
The concept of a god, most of the time comes attached with afterlife concepts.
Afterlife concepts are one of the leading causes of suicide.
@@OmarAngelGarcia atheism is brainwashing
The aunt of my ex-father in law's first wife's step-brother grew a third leg after she prayed to Zarathustra! That is why I am today a devout follower of this proven deity.
Praise the lord!
That’s amazing. I’m committing my entire existence to this said deity now too
Or or orrrrrr, maybe she was nervous to have feedback from the scientific community the same way I get nervous when I wait for test results. Justifiable and no conspiracy behind it
Mary schweitzer actually got the Elizabeth 'Betsy' Nicholls Award for Excellence in Paleontology for her discovery, and since then has had scholarships created in her honor, and even had an extinct bird named after her. She was not ostracized or anything, she was "ridiculed" by some scientists when the discovery was first announced because it was an extraordinary claim, but then when it was confirmed she was literally celebrated by the scientific community and awarded.
This is pretty well-known, but I didn't see it in the comments so I thought I'd explain how Mary's findings are being misrepresented here. *There was no blood* in the fossilised bone. There were traces of iron preserved in the shape of red blood cells, which contain haemoglobin, which contain iron. There was absolutely no remaining organic matter. The term "soft tissue" generally refers to any tissue in the body which is not hardened, like bone or enamel. When palaeontologists use the term, however, they are usually referring to _fossil evidence_ of the tissue, not the tissue itself.
This was such a remarkable find because the conditions necessary for preservation of soft tissue structures are so incredibly rare. The mechanism by which this happened is well understood, and nobody in the scientific community ridiculed Dr Schweitzer; the initial doubt was entirely warranted, given that fossil evidence of individual cells was literally unprecedented.
Also no lab has been able to replicate her findings.
Years ago I was willing to accept that God created life and everything and that evolution was the way God did it. However my evangelical friends told me that I had to accept creationism their way or I could not call myself a Christian. Their way or no way. So I chose "no way". Now I am a firm atheist. At this time I find it very difficult to listen to any evangelical talk on any topic, be it religion, politics and especially on morality. I believe that lies destroy faith. Evangelicals have lied to me, so I have no faith in anything they say.
So now u believe that everything was created from nothing by nothing in the finitude of past time?. Makes perfect sense for the many smug, self defined, semi-evolved apes who waste endless hours on YT trying prove they have nothing to prove.
You certainly have a way of filling in the blanks. I do not recall saying anything about what I believe. I only said that I do not believe what evangelical Christians say because they tell far too many lies. @@Gericho49
Dear@anti-anti-intellectual x such an apt pseudonym for the many young gutter-mouthed faceless frauds who think that insults and profanities substitute for a facts-based, point by point rebuttal. As for ur profound utterance that the universe came from a singularity or perhaps an infinite regress of multiverses, is superfluous to the need to explain the origin of matter from nothing in the finitude of past time. Perhaps if u read Hawking and Krauss' feeble attempts to explain how everything came from non existence, u might just understand why a cause beyond time, space and matter is the only plausible explanation. Then I'd be only happy to discuss the nature of the reality, one that u not only don't believe in but apparently hate. But hang in there young fella, while there's life there's hope.
So my friends, correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt Darwin lament about minds evolved from lower animals being at all trustworthy? Apparently, honesty for us "evolved apes" within Darwin's ideology would hardly be a good survival strategy..So if morality is merely doing what is fashionable in some culture at some point in history, then the Nazi master race for example, had the legislated right to rid society of the genetically deformed and impure races, the aged and mentally ill, right? After all, survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle!
Even a thief knows when they are being duped, since we are all given an innate sense of moral worth and values. Moreover, *we know that somethings are really wrong even if everybody is wrong. And somethings are right even if nobody is right.*
For a committed believer however, deliberately lying is knowing that such activities are soul destroying and will gain nothing in this life and far, far less in the next. It is ironic and rather pathetic when some young cynic or denier pontificates about perceived evil in individuals or past cultures with all the evangelical zeal he despises in believers. Especially, when morality for him, is merely a spin-off from socio-biological evolution. So how often do u buck the herd morality for personal gain and self gratification?
Atheists are Satanists they just aren't smart enough to know it!
This person has clearly NEVER done science or attempted to do science...
Lost it at "Brian, do you speak english?" (14:00ish) lol
He didn’t know the woman’s name, what field she was in, what she discovered, or what it’s practical applicabtion and says she was “brutally attacked” because she faced peer review LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!
Shows his mindset.
Not even a minute in I'm already crying for this man
Mary Schweitzer didn't say a damn thing about science. She raised concerns about creationism hijacking her discovery.
Just watched a video where marry herself said that the only people that made her feel threatened were creationists. But the comments on that from creationists said that she's being manipulated and told to say that.
7:02 he wouldn't be able to pull up institute for creation research if he did that😂
Jen is so sharp.
Scientists that improve/disprove existing theories win the Nobel prize. That Is literally how they win 🥇
The way that he cannot answer Matts question “is it true that science is bias against new information that might upset the status quo?” is brutally frightening for the future.
Brian wants to support the Creationist claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs lived alongside humans. He regards the discovery of dinosaur blood as evidence that dinosaurs lived more recently than previously thought. It's a hypothesis easily disproved by other evidence, but Brian thinks it's conclusive and that the scientific community has conspired to dismiss the finding. The scientist who found the blood was nervous (I saw the BBC programme) because her results would attract considerable scrutiny (a minor paradigm shift) and so she'd have to get her facts absolutely right when she published... which she did. Thanks to her, we now know that it's occasionally possible to get DNA traces from bones that are 65 million years old. It's life after death, Jim, but not as we know it.
Another... "I will change or displace the topic slightly, to avoid answering the original question."
I have had encounters with people like this guy a few times over the years. They have a certain quality about them, it isn't hard to detect in a conversation, it's like being stupid but it's worse.
@studio732jrl2 Right on! Thanks!!
@studio732jrl2 o "arrignorance" or "inoarrogance"?
What's hilarious is how well I get this comment... lol
Matt for the win!
9.20 -- "No...I understand what you are saying...but now I'm going to start over and see if you buy what I'm saying the second time you hear it." /sarcasm
Same reasons I don't believe in Santa Claus and him delivering presents to every child's house in one night before Xmas 😂
I am now dumber because of this caller! Thanks a lot Brian!
lol.
My name's Brian and this is the first time I've used the internet. Lots of cool shit on here
Mary stated that creationists constantly misrepresent her findings .... so there !!! The guy is both completely gullible and delusional.
It may, in fact, contradict the idea that tissue can't survive, under normal circumstances, but that doesn't, in any way, contradict evolution. It just expands our understanding of what can or cannot happened based on certain conditions.
the woman scientist who discovered blood in dinosaur flesh was not worried about submitting it for peer review, in fact, she's a a bible believing Christian, also, the "blood" in the "flesh" was after it was treated with EXTREME chemicals in order to reverse the fossilization process severely, they didnt just dig up a dinosaur fossil and cut into it and have it bleed. She is a great scientist who did amazing work in the field. Young Earth Creationists consistently misrepresent her work and its disgusting.
people talk about the widening income gap, but what's more dangerous in my opinion is the widening education gap.
What they don't say though is that the gap is widening but the base is still going up. Poor people are making more too, just not as much as rich people. I'm okay with that, we need rich people and as many as we can get. Nobody ever worked for a poor person.
"Why don't you guys believe in God? Is it the lack of evidence thing?"
"Yes"
😂💯😂🍻
The lack of evidence isn't actually the biggest problem even (although it is a big issue on itself); the fact that religion is made to control people, is rather obvious from the get go, if you look at it from a distance.
'Is it because of lack of evidence?'
'Yes. And moving on to the next caller...'
The scientist with the dinosaur blood is actually saying that she is tired by being misquoted by these creationists nutcases
I don't know how the hosts are so patient. I run into closed minded people like that often and I straight away say that I am not going to debate anything with them. I do not accept any literature based on pseudoscience, religion, or and fallacy based philosophy. Have a great day everyone.
I struggle with why people can be so easily confused about this sort of thing
The one thing I know about people they hear what the want to hear.
When a theist tries to lecture an atheist on logic, it's like when a klingon tries to lecture a vulcan on logic. Don't even bother.
Too true cobber.!!
Is that a candle with Neil deGrass Tyson on it?
yep
I want one too
@@timothymorrisii7165 Because you want to burn Neil Degrasse Tyson in effigy? Yeah I can understand that.
I have one from the same set with Ada Lovelace on it.
I don't really like Neil deGrass Tyson...
When you want to believe something really badly, you're going to believe it and no logic can ever penetrate your thinking.
This reminds me of this one meme I saw:
"Sources: dude trust me"
Mary Schweitzer has already said to creationists don't miss quote me !!!
"I have evidence for a conspiracy." OK - hmmm.. upon review, there was no conspiracy. "But why won't you talk about the conspiracy?"
First rule of Conspiracy Club - don't talk about Conspiracy Club.
I have to laugh at the advertisements before these videos. Some are for religious colleges and things, but the funniest ones are for Red Lobster! Is it all the talk of the Old Testament laws about shellfish or what? =)
I'm not interested in hearing what religious people say about any subject because their judgement is suspect.
I agree.
Won't answer the question on how a leg can grow immediately switches to dinosaur bones.
He believes that giants had something to do with Egyptian Pyramids because the hieroglyphs said so but i bet he thinks Ra, Bast and Horus aren’t real.
He believes legs grow out of the blue but won't believe that tissue can survive
After working 30 years in science I can say the scientific communities has high standards but is open to new data if the research is solid and poses the thorough scrutiny. Brian is misinformed....
My bf works as a researcher. Science is extremely rigorous. He has had great results and papers written but there has NEVER been a time where he was able to publish it with no issue. He constantly gets rejections, revisions, etc..
And that is how it SHOULD be.
When my father was young, there was a band called "The Ramblers." (Dutch.) He would have been a top member of the band.
as someone who used to do the "leg growing out" thing, most people who are doing this do not mean to do it dishonestly, it is most likely an ideomotor effect however
The growth of legs piece is always the best one because of how quick they get caught in the lies.
I used to be a christian and I fe for that leg thing. I remember I was shocked. It bothers me more now that I'm not and I really trusted the family I was with and Im still hurt by all the deception in the bible and religions.
Creationists -
What they do: Tell each other what to believe according to whatever "holy" book they follow, reject anything that disagrees with their established beliefs.
What they think of Scientists: "Scientists tell people what to believe and reject anything that disagrees with their established beliefs."
Scientists -
What they do: Investigate and test things, including things that seem to contradict what they've previously discovered, to see what is real.
What they think of Creationists: "I wish like hell those buggers would actually investigate and test things!"
they only found the heme part of the hemeglobin with deals with oxidation and is a non-protien part of the red blood cell. It also caused the red coloration of the cell.
I had a faith healer do a leg growing scam on me when I was young and ignorant. I even remember saying but one leg is not longer than the other!
Brian should give up on this argument, he's not smart enough to be in it.
Mah one leg is longer dan da oder one. Dang one grew longer. Amazin. 😂
My conclusion of this call is that insane people are insane.
Such as the infamous case of the Piltdown Man, earthshattering discoveries should be met with appropriately strong skepticism.
Hoaxes, forgeries, and false interpretation in paleontology do happen. Especially those coming from amateurs, fossil hunters, and collectors.
Irritator Challengeri was a spinosaurid dinosaur named after the frustration of restoring and classifying it after fossil traders altered the holotype specimen.
Substantial money can be made by having unique or impressive finds.
Poor Brian from Nebraska.
Poor Nebraska with Brian
I bet Brain has a bunch of “Q” posters in his room.
Brian is the product of what we get
when cousins marry.
In the sweet sweet summer of 1978 I tuned my radio to WSKW AM in Scowhegan Maine where I heard Billy Joel sing Only The Good Die Young. At that point a light bulb flashed in my head and I said to myself Wait,and god is a just god?
When I was in my mother's kitchen, eating ice cream, I asked her where she got it and before she could answer, the angel of the Lord appeared and told me. It's very strange that nobody believes me, yet my mother was there and she saw the angel too. Why do people assume that this never happened? Two people saw it !
@EmperorKleetorisTheCuckolder
You are right and it had four faces turning this way and that way.
I hope your post is being sarcastic. But for fun, let's say you and your mother saw something. Eye witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence for science. So you would have to have something else to back your story. Since you didn't present that, I can only assume you don't have it and thus, no way to prove you saw anything, let alone an angel. BTW do either of you take drugs?
@@joecoolioness6399
I'm waiting for a Christian to respond before providing the evidence.
A friend of mine drove over a landmine and lost his left leg from the knee down. I would love to see one of their "healers" regrowing the leg.
If I remember correctly, it was because the blood was encapsulated in a calcium deposit, thereby preserved. Was that it ?
This was just incredibly painful.
I'm sad now :( if I could debunk a long term scientific theory I'd have my noble prize and he set for life. As if the whole scientific community wouldn't even look in to the claim and if I'm wrong then fine. That would be backed by science. If it were true it's not like every scientist of that specific field would dismiss it. They would test it and that would be great for them... Imagine the first new discoveries of a newly found theory?
As soon as the caller said the word "logic," (10:55) I knew the next thing out of his mouth would be something illogical.
Brian is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, perfect material for a preacher !
I'm glad i watched this. Because that finding is fascinating, and I had not heard about it haha. I will go look into it now :D