i question lots of science. in fact, there is very likely evidence evolution is false or alternatively, our theories of history are false, and it keeps getting covered up.
can you explain how else people like the ancient egyptians accurately depicted brontosaurs in their carvings to an extreme and uncanny degree?
how about the same in cave paintings, or the fact that in the bible the "behemoth" was expected to be a real animal people knew at the time with a tail the "size of a cedar tree"
thats a fucking bronto or a stegosaurus, not an elephant or a hippo like most bibles assume in the footnotes.
go further and see that even marco polo recorded having seen things that remarkably sound like dinosaurs.
and also the fact that many tribes account for seeing "monsters that terrorized the rivers" that fit exactly with a duck-bill dinosaur -- and in fact, even those locals point to pictures and say "that was it!"
moreso, legends of dragons. one scottish or irish account of someone seeing a "dragon" recorded it as having spines on its back and a big tail with iron-like spikes coming out... it was a stegosaurus.
a lot of the time if you look into the supposed "evidence" for the commonly accepted facts, there in fact is none or very little. even if you are taught your entire life otherwise.
im not suggesting creationism is necessarily the truth -- i think it is, but there are other explanations. like how we found coelacanths alive recently doing well, its very possible that small pockets did in fact survive as well, in the deep mountains and forests before man tamed the wilderness fully.
either way a lot of questions arent definitively answered. whoever wants them answered always gets a one-sided panel of judges to agree with them.
there never has been a single transitionary fossil found, and life seems to come from nowhere suddenly at several points. most mutations end up being negative in reality and end up not reproducing. soft tissue has been found in some dino bones, which is scientifically impossible with the assumed 65 million year date.
there also are never cases of partially developed organs, or visible cases beyond small adaptations.
sure you can find a small portion with a slightly different gene that makes like, rats that are resistant to rat poison. but thats a relatively small thing. it never amounts to the rat becoming an entirely new species of animal.
Dog breeds? thats not different species. thats just a different breed of the same species. and even if we can modify for size and behavior to some degree, we cannot alter the dog totally into a cat or a rat. even over billions of years.
the idea of "micro-evolution" imo, is misleading. its the only example we have, and really its just breeding for slightly different traits in the same species.
very recently I felt this inner push that I can only describe as god telling me that "you know I do think dinosaurs coexisted with humans at one point"
I then actually started researching this deeply. and even though I knew evolution had no actual proof like transitionary fossils, I had no idea how deep this cover up went.
theres literally evidence all around the world that could not be possible without either
A.) ancient people being technologically advanced enough to have done paleontology and figured out how to know what the thing looked like with skin on as well
or
B.) the people recording these accounts or drawing those pictures actually saw dinosaurs but the word had not been invented yet, so they were called "beasts" "behemoths" or "dragons" or other such things like tribal monster names.
Honestly tame brontos also could have helped build the pyramids probably. and that might make sense as to why they were depicted but idk.
i question lots of science. in fact, there is very likely evidence evolution is false or alternatively, our theories of history are false, and it keeps getting covered up.
can you explain how else people like the ancient egyptians accurately depicted brontosaurs in their carvings to an extreme and uncanny degree?
how about the same in cave paintings, or the fact that in the bible the "behemoth" was expected to be a real animal people knew at the time with a tail the "size of a cedar tree"
thats a fucking bronto or a stegosaurus, not an elephant or a hippo like most bibles assume in the footnotes.
go further and see that even marco polo recorded having seen things that remarkably sound like dinosaurs.
and also the fact that many tribes account for seeing "monsters that terrorized the rivers" that fit exactly with a duck-bill dinosaur -- and in fact, even those locals point to pictures and say "that was it!"
moreso, legends of dragons. one scottish or irish account of someone seeing a "dragon" recorded it as having spines on its back and a big tail with iron-like spikes coming out... it was a stegosaurus.
a lot of the time if you look into the supposed "evidence" for the commonly accepted facts, there in fact is none or very little. even if you are taught your entire life otherwise.
im not suggesting creationism is necessarily the truth -- i think it is, but there are other explanations. like how we found coelacanths alive recently doing well, its very possible that small pockets did in fact survive as well, in the deep mountains and forests before man tamed the wilderness fully.
either way a lot of questions arent definitively answered. whoever wants them answered always gets a one-sided panel of judges to agree with them.
there never has been a single transitionary fossil found, and life seems to come from nowhere suddenly at several points. most mutations end up being negative in reality and end up not reproducing. soft tissue has been found in some dino bones, which is scientifically impossible with the assumed 65 million year date.
there also are never cases of partially developed organs, or visible cases beyond small adaptations.
sure you can find a small portion with a slightly different gene that makes like, rats that are resistant to rat poison. but thats a relatively small thing. it never amounts to the rat becoming an entirely new species of animal.
Dog breeds? thats not different species. thats just a different breed of the same species. and even if we can modify for size and behavior to some degree, we cannot alter the dog totally into a cat or a rat. even over billions of years.
the idea of "micro-evolution" imo, is misleading. its the only example we have, and really its just breeding for slightly different traits in the same species.
Ever listen to Dr. Hovind?
idts i can give him a listen.
Barney the purple dinosaur?
I love everything about this comment! Good stuff.
The evolution push in the 90s was the commies biG achievement
But the real evidence against Darwinism is in information science..
But of course to those who want to put us in cages ,...a large compliant citizenry that believes themselves monkeys is an absolute must
very recently I felt this inner push that I can only describe as god telling me that "you know I do think dinosaurs coexisted with humans at one point"
I then actually started researching this deeply. and even though I knew evolution had no actual proof like transitionary fossils, I had no idea how deep this cover up went.
theres literally evidence all around the world that could not be possible without either
A.) ancient people being technologically advanced enough to have done paleontology and figured out how to know what the thing looked like with skin on as well
or
B.) the people recording these accounts or drawing those pictures actually saw dinosaurs but the word had not been invented yet, so they were called "beasts" "behemoths" or "dragons" or other such things like tribal monster names.
Honestly tame brontos also could have helped build the pyramids probably. and that might make sense as to why they were depicted but idk.
Mm...maybe..not to keen on that angle myself...I just know that “random chance” is the antithesis of Code....