Comments by "Michael Kahn" (@michaelkahn8903) on "Joe Rogan - Eddie Bravo Goes DEEP on Flat Earth" video.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PaladinPoppie if the earth is rotating, and everything with it, (and it is by necessity of earth's thousands of miles of circumference) going at a high speed, then why do we feel wind blowing at ten, twenty, thirty and more miles an hour, in different directions, changing direction and force at any time and with few seconds of time between changes?
THINK, MAN-- WE HAVE BEEN LIED TO! I thoroughly have debunked evolution-if you want to see it, it is a few pages long, but with your request, i will copy and paste it here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
continues
Many pictures and models of “transitional apemen” have been created from evidence of a single tooth, or no evidence at all,- including their hair color, skin tones, and even facial expressions. Remember Nebraska man? It was discovered to be a tooth from an extinct ape. Java man (also known as homo erectus)-the “discoverer” admitted before he died that it was an ape’s skull with human legs and other bones- a fraud. Another fraud had legs of a human, jaw of a pig, and chemicals made it appear, old- at first it was thought to be 500,000 years old. Years later they found out it was fifty years old. Do you remember the famous discovery named Lucy? Discovering scientist Johanson said he saw a piece of bone laying on the ground, that and other bits- it was most of a skeleton, but the knee joint was found a mile away, two hundred feet deeper under the ground. This was said to be an ape which stood. It turns out that it was an extinct ape with legs of a human. So why is the missing link still missing? Because it obviously doesn’t exist.
According to different theories, (notice the word “theory”-it’s not been proven despite the past 150 years of attempts. Why? Because it’s not not true, actually it’s more scientifically accurate to call it a hypothesis) there is an evolutionary tree leading to present day homo sapien from a chimpanzee type creature. Illustrations have used fictional ideas to create facial expressions, color and type of hair, protruding foreheads, and other features made up in their own imaginations, from a tooth or joint. You can see these in school textbooks which do not state the difference between the fact and imagination. That is based on 19th century science- comparative anatomy-which suggests that you can know what you look like and your favorite flavor ice cream(an exaggerated analogy) by looking at your fingernail clippings. Every absolute theory is only as good as the outcome of the next experiment, discovery, or observation, and there are no guarantees of the results. These theories, which by definition are dependent on proof by experimentation and observation, coming up as predicted by a certain percent of the time, are very fragile.
The findings of the evolution-chasing scientists come up with new information every month, some “proving” their theories, some disproving. When a theory is disproved, they simply change the length of time the evolutionary process needed for their theory to appear legitimate. In other words, they do everything but admit mistakenness.
Scientists use several methods of dating fossils and other artifacts. The most reputable and most used is carbon dating. According to Dr. Kent Hovind: “at least six different radiometric dating methods are available. The assumed age of the sample will dictate which dating method is used because each will give a different result. For example, when dinosaur bones containing carbon are found, they are not carbon dated because the result would be only a few thousand years. Because this would not match the assumed age based on the geologic column (the stated information in our books), scientists use another method of dating to give an age closer to the desired results. All radiometric results that do not match the pre-assigned ages of the geologic column are discarded.”
1
-
more
This is a perfect example of the outcome of the observation based on and controlled by the assumed, desired, or expected outcome. Also remember that in the academic world, if you don’t come up with the conclusion consistent with the people giving grants to the academy, you had better find a way of changing and justifying the change in your results in accordance with their economic, political, and philosophical views, it is all about achieving conformity.
Evolution is not good science. It is a pagan religion to explain our origins with a fictionalized account-similar to Genesis. I don’t have enough blind faith to believe in evolution. It is believed despite there being no proof of it. Here are a few questions to ask evolutionary scientists:
Where did matter come from?
Where, when, why, and how did life come from lifeless matter?
When where and how did life learn to reproduce itself? How did a new form of life reproduce itself without the reproduction system fully evolved?
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (recombining English letters will not produce Chinese books)
How did eyes, ears, and organs evolve? (the eye has half a dozen functions that would necessarily evolve simultaneously to be able to function)
Which evolved first?
This world has so many types of species that are interdependent and can live only with the existence of the others. Each of most organisms has many different organs with different functions and interactive features such as the eye, which was created with six different features that could not function without each other. How could they have been created without an intelligent being there to do it? It could not have been done except simultaneously and interactively. The eye could not function without all six components in their complete and finished form. They would not provide vision in an incomplete and evolutionary progressive form, so the new species would be blind for thousands, or millions, of years. But people who wanted to provide another option to the bible’s version came up with the “green slime” theory, which talks of a “primordial soup” of elements which magically came to life, and then magically formed into complex thinking beings with souls. Simply look at nature –you can’t get perfect order out of chaos- but that is what evolutionists claim happened. Out of void and dust there was suddenly a big bang and PRESTO!- planets and stars were formed. They ignore the scientific fact that every reaction (like an explosion) comes from an action (there was none).
1
-
and more
Dr. Colin Paterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in New York City, gave a keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History in NY City in 1981. He explained his "anti-evolutionary” view: “One morning I woke up and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing that I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled for so long…. I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, one thing, that is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on members of the evolutionary morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said: “I do know one thing- in ought not be taught in high school.”
Sir Alfred Hoyle, professor of anatomy, Cambridge University, said this in “Evolution From Space” – “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10, with 40,000 zeros behind it. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primordial soup on this planet or any other planet, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”
Why is there so much confidence put on a theory with so many holes in it? If it is false, why do so many people believe it? How could so many people be wrong? A partial answer can be found in a forward to the 100th edition of “The Origin of Species,” the book by Darwin. The forward by Sir Arthur Keith says “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
One of the points that I have been making in my books is that we have been intentionally and deliberately deceived. If one deception is not believed, another one will be fabricated to replace it. And even more disturbing is the knowledge that the purposes behind these lies are devious and malicious. The mystery of evil, the concept of the depth of evil, is a concept difficult to comprehend by people who are foundationally good. But unfortunately, malicious evil is very real. While it does use money and power as tools, those are not always its motivation. You will be aware of why (as I have concluded) the theory of evolution has been promoted. Another falsehood had to replace the bible, and evolution has provided whole new avenues of entertainment, but the motivation for its fabrication is more devious.
Surely you may think that all those scientists cannot be wrong. A title of doctor or professor does not make you infallible. And many of those scientists don’t buy those theories, but are silenced by the powerful authorities. See the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” It was produced by, and featured, Ben Stein, and it showed many highly intelligent and qualified scientists who questioned and refuted evolution, who were vilified and condemned by the education system, because they did not conform to conventional belief. These men and women believed in intelligent design (not necessarily the bible’s version) by questioning formerly held beliefs (which is basically the definition of true science- a search for truth) and were fired, withdrawn from being eligible for funding from all sources, and were ostracized; not for any falsehood in what they presented (there was none), but because of the stubbornness of the institutions. Why do these institutions refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they are mistaken? One reason (other than embarrassment) could be that they have an agenda. Darwin’s theory of evolution promoted the idea of “survival of the fittest.” The Nazis needed some “proof” of the superiority of the Aryan race, and to justify their slaughter of “inferior” peoples. The Roman Empire, and it’s subjugation of, and slaughter of the American natives, it’s slavery of Africans, and it’s rule over other populations, needed justification. Soon, and it has already been initiated in the middle east, the Vatican will annihilate billions of people using its tool, the United States and its military. Because the European caucasian race is better (and more fit to live) than the Negro, Hispanic, Semitic, and Asian peoples, or so they want us to believe (and maybe they think so themselves). According to the “science”, the annihilation of all other humans by the white man is just a matter of weeding out inferior races from existence.
1
-
here is why you beleive the bs- and why i dont-so-called scientists are evil
Dr. Colin Paterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in New York City, gave a keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History in NY City in 1981. He explained his "anti-evolutionary” view: “One morning I woke up and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing that I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled for so long…. I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, one thing, that is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on members of the evolutionary morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said: “I do know one thing- in ought not be taught in high school.”
Sir Alfred Hoyle, professor of anatomy, Cambridge University, said this in “Evolution From Space” – “The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10, with 40,000 zeros behind it. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primordial soup on this planet or any other planet, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”
Why is there so much confidence put on a theory with so many holes in it? If it is false, why do so many people believe it? How could so many people be wrong? A partial answer can be found in a forward to the 100th edition of “The Origin of Species,” the book by Darwin. The forward by Sir Arthur Keith says “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
One of the points that I have been making in my books is that we have been intentionally and deliberately deceived. If one deception is not believed, another one will be fabricated to replace it. And even more disturbing is the knowledge that the purposes behind these lies are devious and malicious. The mystery of evil, the concept of the depth of evil, is a concept difficult to comprehend by people who are foundationally good. But unfortunately, malicious evil is very real. While it does use money and power as tools, those are not always its motivation. You will be aware of why (as I have concluded) the theory of evolution has been promoted. Another falsehood had to replace the bible, and evolution has provided whole new avenues of entertainment, but the motivation for its fabrication is more devious.
Surely you may think that all those scientists cannot be wrong. A title of doctor or professor does not make you infallible. And many of those scientists don’t buy those theories, but are silenced by the powerful authorities. See the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” It was produced by, and featured, Ben Stein, and it showed many highly intelligent and qualified scientists who questioned and refuted evolution, who were vilified and condemned by the education system, because they did not conform to conventional belief. These men and women believed in intelligent design (not necessarily the bible’s version) by questioning formerly held beliefs (which is basically the definition of true science- a search for truth) and were fired, withdrawn from being eligible for funding from all sources, and were ostracized; not for any falsehood in what they presented (there was none), but because of the stubbornness of the institutions. Why do these institutions refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they are mistaken? One reason (other than embarrassment) could be that they have an agenda. Darwin’s theory of evolution promoted the idea of “survival of the fittest.” The Nazis needed some “proof” of the superiority of the Aryan race, and to justify their slaughter of “inferior” peoples. The Roman Empire, and it’s subjugation of, and slaughter of the American natives, it’s slavery of Africans, and it’s rule over other populations, needed justification. Soon, and it has already been initiated in the middle east, the Vatican will annihilate billions of people using its tool, the United States and its military. Because the European caucasian race is better (and more fit to live) than the Negro, Hispanic, Semitic, and Asian peoples, or so they want us to believe (and maybe they think so themselves). According to the “science”, the annihilation of all other humans by the white man is just a matter of weeding out inferior races from existence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1