Good luck saving yourself, in making yourself "good". I certainly can't do it...

Dr. Malone has, unfortunately, been promoting false conspiracy theories, as has Dr. Arliss. www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-robert-malone-from-vaccine-inventor-to-conspiracy-theorist/ Early treatment is great, but only when it comes to interventions that actually work. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rH-WYZijrMiBiZY Ivermectin simply hasn't been shown to be significantly helpful against COVID-19. www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-robert-malone-from-vaccine-inventor-to-conspiracy-theorist/#What-about-Hydroxychloroquine-and-Ivermectin Ventilators are not used, and have never been used, except as a very last resort when a person simply can no longer breath for themselves. As far as being "fearfully and wonderfully made", that's true. It's just that we've lived in this world of sin and decay for many thousands of years now. The human immune system simply isn't what it was originally made to be. It now needs a helping hand on occasion, especially during pandemics like this one, and vaccines are a wonderful gift of God to help us in our fallen and degraded state. The fact is that since the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 have been made available that those who are getting very sick and are dying of COVID are almost always unvaccinated. This is now a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Those who are telling you otherwise simply do not work in an ICU in a major medical center where unvaccinated people are needlessly dying. Let me ask you, when was the last time you were personally in an large ICU? seeing those who are very sick with COVID-19? You just have no idea. You believe the conspiracy theories that you see online, but have no personal relevant experience with what's really happening to the unvaccinated. i0.wp.com/www.educatetruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/mRNA-vaccines-vs-Delta-and-Omicron.jpg?resize=768%2C605

You mean that secular scientists (who are not "unbiased" by the way) and the Bible disagree. That's not the same thing as "science" or "scientific reasoning" being contrary to true Biblical Christianity. True science and true scientific understanding are in harmony with God's Word since God is the author of both the Bible and our ability to think in a rational/scientific manner.

Trilobites are probably too small to avoid complete fossilization. Large dinosaur bones, on the other hand, more often than not, were not completely mineralized and do preserve original dinosaur soft tissues, proteins, and even fragments of DNA.

So, how do you explain the continued existence of these dinosaur soft tissues, proteins, and fragments of DNA? - given your position that they are, in fact, many tens of millions of years old? Where is the science to back up your claims in the face of the science that otherwise clearly shows that soft tissues, proteins, and DNA rapidly decay at ambient temperatures via the actions of kinetic chemistry alone? Also, where is the science to explain large amounts of radiocarbon in these dinosaur soft tissues as well? - when science otherwise tells us that all traces of radiocarbon should be completely gone and undetectable in less than 100k years?

@@Seanpit1 Where is the genome of dinosaurs??

@@dmc3079 I think I said "fragments" of dinosaur DNA. While tiny fragments of DNA can't be used to determine the genome of dinosaurs, no such fragments should exist, no proteins or soft tissues should exist, at all, not a single tiny little shred, after tens of millions of years - according to very clear scientific evidence. So, why are they there? Also, why do they contain large quantities of radiocarbon? Hmmmm?

@@Seanpit1 I've sent multiple links to sources and for whatever reason they are not showing up.....

The past, even the relatively recent past, wasn't the same as it is now. For example, Eucalyptus trees also once existed in S. America - in Patagonia. Also, species can rapidly become specialized. In other words, the ancestors of the modern Koala bear need not have had such an exclusive diet.

@@Seanpit1 So evolution works??

@@Seanpit1 Also, when do YOU date the time of Noah's flood?

@@dmc3079 As I explained in my talks, random mutations and natural selection do "work", but only on the lowest levels of functional complexity. The problem is that this Darwinian mechanism stalls out, in an exponential manner, with each step up the ladder of functional complexity. Also, the overall detrimental mutation rate is so high that the general trend for any gene pool of slowly reproducing creatures (like all mammals for instance) is always downhill. As far as dietary specialization, this is the result of a loss of original gene pool functionality, not a gain of novel functionality. And, losses of function, like cavefish without eyes for another example, can happen very rapidly. As far as my "date" for Noah's Flood, I'd say it was around 4-5k years ago.

@@Seanpit1 If the dinosaurs died rapidly after noah's flood, like you suggest, then why aren't we seeing fossils of recent species of animals buried along side of the dinosaurs?

Mary Schweitzer did, in fact, discover original dinosaur soft tissues in dinosaur bones. The acid she used simply dissolved away the minerals of the bone leaving behind the original unmodified dinosaur soft tissues. This isn't my claim. This is her claim - a claim that she has now proven with numerous published experiments.

@@Seanpit1 You do know that Mary is an Old World Evolutionist, right?

How do you know? Upon what do you base your beliefs and thoughts about the past and the future?

From the writings of Ellen White.

@@Seanpit1 And her evidence was?

Divine revelation.

It's also consistent with the claims of the Bible regarding the degeneration of modern humans compared with Adam and the first generations following him who lived very very long lives compared to us. And, it is consistent with the very good scientific evidence of the build up of detrimental genetic mutations in each generation - i.e., genetic degeneration that is driving the human gene pool downhill, not uphill.

@@Seanpit1 Modern medicine and technology may allow deleterious mutations to remain in a population, since there is not as much selection pressure as previous millennia. Although, that doesn't make the claims of biblical characters any more true. Furthermore, beneficial mutations are as likely as non beneficial mutations ("beneficial" depends on an organisms environment). Your "very good scientific evidence" doesn't exist. And the idea that the human genome is going downhill depends on the false assumption that only deleterious mutations happen.

Where did I misquote Mary Schweitzer? And yes, there is evidence of broken-down fragments of DNA in dinosaur bone - www.scientificamerican.com/article/possible-dinosaur-dna-has-been-found/

Really? How so? (www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html#The%20Visual%20Method)

You have to study it for yourself and see. I've personally found the Bible to be very internally consistent...

@@Seanpit1 "internally consistent..." - then why are there contradictions?

@@dmc3079 Such as? Sure, if you read the gospels, for example, they emphasize different things about the story of Jesus, but they are complementary rather than contradictory. There really are no major or fundamental contradictions beyond what you'd expect from true eyewitness testimony.

@@Seanpit1 Luke 24:1-51 contradicts John 20:26. Matthew 28:9 contradicts John 20:14, and again, Luke 24:23. "There really are no major or fundamental contradictions " - these seem to be major.

Where are the contradictions here? Consider that even secular scholars of the Bible see these stories as complementary, not contradictory.

We'll see ;-)

Thank you for your comment. I really appreciate it and am glad that you found some of the concepts presented helpful to you.

How then do you explain Paul's comments in the Book of Romans (chapter 2 verses 13-15) where he explains that even the honest heathen (who have never heard of Jesus Christ or His story, who do not have a knowledge of the true God of Heaven or of the Law) can be saved? by living according to what God has written on their hearts? This isn't my argument, it's Paul's argument. Sure, the Bible is clear that Jesus is the only path to salvation, but the path that He created for humanity is, evidently, able to save even those honest souls who have never ever heard His Name or His Story. If they show selfless love for their neighbors, are they not showing that they are living according to the Royal Law that God wrote on their hearts? - that they are listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit even though they don't know who He is? - and are therefore savable? The Story of Redemption will be told to them in Heaven one day (Zechariah 13:6). Praise God!

@@Seanpit1 yes because God wrote the Ten Commandments on our heart so even if you haven't heard of the Bible you still know what is right or wrong. But if you do know the Bible that you are required to know better and to not shun his son Jesus Christ cuz that is against the Holy Spirit and that sin can never be forgiven. So in order to be saved and you know about the gospel then you must accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior that he's the son of God and died for our sins and repent truly of your sins. That is the only way

@@Seanpit1 no.. In context _ it means none can keep the law. The point was about grace and salvation for Jews and non Jews. In the context of those without the law still do things by conscious that Jews do with the law. It shows all men are guilty and sin__ all need grace and salvation. All scripture needs context_ he was comparing and then condemning the arrogance of those with the law. (Understand what the law was for) He isn't saying salvation comes to either group since that's impossible. It's why free grace and salvation is needed by both groups... If you don't understand the purpose of the law__ you never understand Christ. The good Jew and the good pagan are neither one saved by the law. Neither one saved by the law of conscious. That They obey is self serving _and not GOD serving. God serving is the acceptance of grace and salvation in christ. Man is not his own moral judge. 😉

@@bda2444 It just means that all who truly love their neighbors, even the heathen, do so through the Power of God.

@@Seanpit1 Sean you are absolutely dead wrong. Jesus said: John 3:3 KJV "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." John 14:6 KJV "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Paul said: Romans 3:10-12,20 KJV "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. [20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Galatians 2:16 KJV "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Acts 16:29-31 KJV "Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, [30] And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? [31] And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Galatians 1:6-12 KJV "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: [7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. [9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. [10] For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. [11] But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. [12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" Sean you are preaching a false gospel that is leading people and yourself to hell. You should repent of your false gospel message and pray that no one you ever preached that demonic doctrine too died in their sins.

There are ways to class proteins into families in the same way that genes can be organized. We can look at the order of the building blocks (amino acids) of proteins to see how related they are, and we can do the same with the genes which produce those proteins. With both of these techniques together, we can see that bacterial flagella are related to Type-III protein transporters--special "pumps" that move proteins outside of cells for one reason or another. The main difference between the pump and the flagella is the actual "filament," or the part that looks like a hair and spins, as well as the rotation system. The vast majority of the parts that make up a bacterial flagellum are already found in the same places as flagella, performing a similar task to flagella (they pump the filament out of the cell and it builds outside, so they still pump proteins), and in abundance. And microbiologists have hardly scratched the surface. We knew this years ago and we learn more every day. The bacterial flagellum evolved, just like every other component in a bacterial cell, or any other cell, or even a virus. That you don't understand this has nothing to do with common sense--it has to do with the fact that you have never been taught enough biology to understand how these things work. I'm sorry our education system failed you.

@@Prometheus720 it has been proven now that the pump evolved from the flagella, also the argument is, that it has to be put together simultaneously, something impossible for the evolutionary process. So the flagella is actually a proof, that evolution is impossible

dude. this is hilarious because, as nicely as possible- YOU are the, instead of stupid I'll say uneducated, one here. i love how religious people love to give religion for their "answer" and """"evidence"""" for everything. like jesus- its fundamental science backed by every nation and every developed, science-based society in the world. Evolution and natural selection is very real, and we see it today along with our 541 million year old Life timeline that science has developed, with real evidence, and real common sense. please, do some real research, and take a step back from your brainwashed beliefs from time to time. can't believe people really live like this sometimes

@@PlavitPOi90 no, lol, not at all. just too complicated for religious-brainwashed, ignorant people like you. you could change, and start learning and thinking for yourself, but sadly I don't think that is likely for those so embedded in their ignorant views so late in their lives, especially religious brainwashing.

Evolution is a fact whether your sore creationist loser ass likes it or not. Evidence for evolution cannot be denied. Dr. Francis Collins is a Christian scientist who led the Human Genome Project. "Evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things." Francis Collins

The problem with this argument is that formaldehyde is able to preserve soft tissues for a few years, not tens of thousands much less millions of years at ambient temperatures. Beyond this, some preserved dinosaur soft tissues have no access to iron nanoparticles...

Sean Pitman read carefully, acts not is.

Augustes Dupin - Again, acting like formaldehyde won't get the job done - not by a long shot. Iron nanoparticles just don't solve the problem here. Also, you seem to have missed the part about finely preserved dinosaur soft tissue with no iron around.

Seanpit1 I guess I watched the wrong video because it clearly states that the bones were dropped in acid removing minerals . Is iron a mineral? They also did an experiment with blood vessels in water and in a iron rich liquid with red blood cells. The vessel in water were destroyed in days, the ones In iron rich liquid remained recognizable after 2 years in room temp.

Seanpit1 I can see the comment(not the whole thing) in my notifications but can't read it on this thread...?

Thank you.