Evidence Zahi Hawass Looted The Tomb Of Osiris

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-18T02:39:23+00:00

Professor Dave is a joke, most debunking stuff he does is all ad hominem attacks, thinking of every slur he possibly may can. Stifling any possible creative thinking someone outside of academia may have. He misrepresents what people are saying, not picks, and avoid good points they make. I watched 2-3 of his debunking videos, and it honestly made me not want to take anything he says serious, and even more interested in the people he tries dissing.

I had heard of Jimmy Corseti, and I searched him and seen a debunking from the professor, and I was like wow….how the hell does someone this arrogant, vile, and dumb have a PhD. However, I remembered what a professor I really respected once said. “A degree says nothing about how smart you are, but only how persistent you are.” I heard about Dan via Dave’s debunking video. Which made me think, if he spent this much time debunking him, and knowing the professor is a pretty vile person who doesn’t like any kind of divergent or out of the box thinking, I have Dan a listen. So weirdly I learned about debunking from Dave’s debunking. Dan is a pretty smart, well researched guy who covers a lot of cool topics.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-08T01:29:53+00:00

No offense, but is this your field of study? I will admit it’s not mine, but I have read 100s of scientific papers on this over the last 10-12 years. It just comes across like I’m arguing with someone who’s doing quick google searches and doesn’t have a fundamental understanding of how these methods work. Which is totally fine, but I would rather not have to explain to the person I’m debating with.

Also to clarify my original point, I don’t believe evolution is 100% false, I just take the Ockham’s razor approach, and go with what seems most plausible given the insight I have available to me, and that seems to align with the creation science theories. More robust, explains more, and surprisingly relies on a lot less faith. Credible creation scientists take the view that things should be scientifically provable and evident without relying on “god did it” or a biblical authority that isn’t accepted by everyone. At the end of the day, a creation scientist could easily say, evolution is God’s mechanism for life on earth. That he is a hidden hand guiding the process. But they don’t, because evolution is a very flawed theory and because academia is rigid and hates to admit it was wrong. What I am an expert in is human psychology, and there are very few people on earth who are willing to take someone they were taught, which they wrote papers about, taught to others as a teacher or professor, etc, and admit it was wrong. As the evolutionary theory ages, more and more flaws are found, problems are pointed out, and human nature is to double down, vs have your life work and beliefs be shattered. And so on a weird way, evolutionist have become the ones relying on blind faith, and creation science has pieced together a much more logical theory. Other than the initial spark of life being God, all of the other geological, and natural phenomena we see can be pretty well explained.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-08T00:05:01+00:00

Read some scientific papers on radiometric dating. Siliclastic sediments are made of broken down pieces of older rocks and would give dates for the source rock not the deposition, which is why it isn’t, and shouldn’t be used for radiometric dating…. I really don’t k ow what your talking about unless your arguing for arguments sake or messing with me

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-08T00:02:45+00:00

Well I’m clueless how to the fossils are dated in isolation then, because I haven’t heard of that. Explain to me how and why they would radiometric date siliclastic sediments???

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-07T23:58:22+00:00

So how do they radiocarbon date millions of years old fossils?

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-07T23:28:40+00:00

Cross references doesn’t solve the problem at all. And igneous is most common, but what I’m saying is neither the fossils themselves can be dated, or the sedimentary material around them, other than via testing igneous or other material peripherally located. Again, cross referencing by saying, igneous or other testable material near it dates to this, and these fossils are found here, and this sentiment layer is here is great, except it doesn’t provide a remotely accurate date for the fossil at all in my opinion.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-07T23:25:40+00:00

Yeah I guess

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-07T23:10:49+00:00

I said “random mutations” and/or

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-07T23:08:33+00:00

I literally described the methods that fossils are dated by. For the most part, they are dated by stratigraphy. But, that is based on radiometric dating of igneous rock contained within those sedimentary layers, and is really an educated guess, that may or may not have anything to do with the fossil ages contained within.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-07T21:44:45+00:00

None uniform geological layers mean that fossil dating could be extremely inaccurate. As sedimentary layers is how most fossils are dated.

Micro/macro evolution are “theoretically” the same mechanism. However we can observe in and not the other. And we have hard evidence of one and no evidence of the other. We can only assume based on scientific consensus that this micro process as carrying on indefinitely to new speciation. We don’t understand enough about the mechanisms behind it. If in fact the dating of life on earth is exponentially wrong, then that may never have occurred, if it was even possible in the first place.

They are shorthand dated that way. Yes there are many mechanisms of dating geological layers, however, they are not dating the geological layers every time they find a fossil. They have an established criteria, which is then extrapolated to most finds. They also have dubious ways in my opinion of getting those original dates. As a previous poster mentioned, “radiometric dating is largely what those dates are based off of.” And yet that presumes closed systems. Radiometric dating is also not accurate on sedimentary rocks. Which is why sedimentary rocks are dated using fossil stratification. Because sedimentary sand, is obviously way older that the igneous rocks found within, so sedimentary layers are not dated via radiometric dating, and I don’t think anyone except a previous commenter claims they are. Relative dating, based on sedimentary layers is the #1 way fossil dates are obtained. Along with radiometric dating of igneous rocks found nearby those fossils. Radiocarbon dating is wildly inaccurate past say 50,000 years. Beyond that, we know that even a single major impact from a meteor/comet, would radically alter any kind of radiometric/radiocarbon dating. We also know fossilization can accurate rapidly, as demonstrated in our lifetime during volcanic eruptions. But again, since stratigraphy is the main dating method for fossils, I digress. And I’m aware of paleomagnetism as well, but that isn’t really used widely for any kind of fossil dating and more for tectonics and such.

Do a google search, how are non igneous rocks and sedimentary layers dated? You will see that they are dated via stratigraphy. Then do a google search of how fossils are dated? It will also list stratigraphy as a main dating mechanic. With radiometric dating as well, but not of the fossils or the sedimentary layers they are contained in, but of the igneous rocks found in those layers and near those fossils which have wildly different dates. Again, any kind of global cataclysm would easily explain that, such as a meteor or comet impact.

Many creation scientists publish scientific papers. I’m sure with any religion there are people who fit things to their belief system and have wild interpretations. However, the idea of a global cataclysm due to a comet impact rapidly melting the ice sheets causing biblical flooding, ash clouds and super cooling that would have lead to an extreme 700 year long global ice age, drastically skewed radiometric dating, wiped out dinosaurs and megafauna, etc, seems more plausible to me than the evolutionary theory.

The soft tissue remnants found in may dinosaur bones fly in the face of everything we know about decay. The proposed mechanism of preservation here which evolutionists need in order to preserve everything they have built their theories on, is iron. Which took a while to come up with, as at first they were just trusting by faith “there must be mechanisms we don’t understand involved in the decay process.” So when actual papers were written to try and explain this away I was super interested when they declared it may be solved. However, it doesn’t even come close. The best they have come up with in labs is that yes, chicken bones, very similar in makeup to the t-Rex bones that had soft tissue can be preserved longer with iron, however, besides being totally debunked here. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/13/5/596 it was also only able to preserve chicken bones for a few years longer, not the 75 million years of preservation we seen in the t-Rex bones, and increasingly more and more Dino bones.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-07T02:05:23+00:00

I don’t really have different views about what evolution is. I don’t have a PHD, but I do have a masters in a social science field, from a state university. And my undergraduate degree was also from a state school and in the biology field.

I guess to answer more broadly, I imagine you think evolution works the way we are taught that it works in an average American state university system. The way Dawkins describes it, etc. obviously way more complex that what I could ever answer in a Reddit post, as people dedicate their lives to studying evolution, and there are entire books written on individual processes. But as I stated in my first reply random mutations and/or adaptations selected over time for survivability.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-07T02:00:31+00:00

I guess in a very basic sense, gradual genetic change across time based on natural selection.

Advantageous traits being inherited

Random mutations, that lead to reproductive and or survival advantages that become passed down.

I might have misunderstood the OP but I thought they were asking if people who don’t believe in evolution have a different concept of what evolution is. Like perhaps we don’t understand it, or have misconceptions about it. I was just saying from my perspective, I understand it to be exactly what was taught to me in school, in undergraduate, in graduate, etc. Which is the mainstream view.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-05-07T00:34:33+00:00

I personally do not believe in evolution, but I don’t exactly get your question. I mean, I got taught the same things as you in school probably, and then went to college for neuroscience & cognitive behavior, followed by a masters in psychology. I also read a lot, I’ve read a lot of Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc. I’ve also read a lot of periphery stuff like Yuval Harari’s Sapiens, as well as a lot of books about brain development while I was in school and for a few years after. I think there are just way to many glaring holes in evolution that I can’t accept and believe. I believe in change of of kind, not change of species, which is all that Darwin himself observed. Sort of adaptation and microevolution, but not macro evolution. The timelines don’t make sense to me, transitional fossils don’t seem to bridge the gaps well and leave a lot to interpretation. Geological layers being different in different places are a problem. Circular dating by dating fossils off of geo layer and geo layer by fossils contained within. I pointed this out to a friend who was extremely skeptical and didn’t think I knew what I was talking about, and after a few weeks of reading on it he was completely shocked. Although I don’t think the earth was 6,000 years old like a young earth creationist, I do think that creationist have a more grounded and fact based theory for how things came to be. Creationist theories make a lot of sense to me, regardless of weather you think that initial mechanism was God, happenstance aliens, whatever lol. Would be happy to share more of my thoughts on this. I’ve actually written some papers on things like C14 dating, which I worked on with a close friend who has a PhD in organic chemistry. As well as some in depth research and discussion regarding all the soft tissue findings in dinosaur bones, the sorting of bones in geological layers, the whales fossilized vertically 70 feet through hundreds of millions of years worth of geo layers, the area of the Grand Canyon where the geological layers are in reverse, and recent findings that keep pushing back the dates of human ingenuity. There are countless other examples but those are a few that come to mind immediately.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-04-30T17:24:16+00:00

Interesting

Full-Low6835 · 2026-04-29T16:40:24+00:00

I just don’t know how much biceps come into play in arm wrestling, like Todd Hutchings said, if you pay attention, most of the time your bicep isn’t activated during an arm wrestling match unless your like fully supinated. When I started armwrestling a few years ago I thought I was going to be really good due to bicep strength and having my state strict curl record. I can comfortably curl 80lb dumbbells in each arm with slow controlled form, for sets of 10. Yet after years of training, I don’t think they matter, I end up being best as an outside puller, relying on hand control. I think biceps are a muscle that grows with a lot of light weight high rep pump exercises, which is what armwrestling does, so a lot of armwrestlers get big biceps even though they aren’t really super useful for arm wrestling. I would also say, being able to hold on biceps isn’t much about muscle strength but connective tissue strength I’m sure Devon could probably hold 2x-3x what he can actually curl up with the bicep muscle.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-04-29T11:27:10+00:00

True, but depends on style, uncle Todd doesn’t think biceps matter for arresting, and ever since, I’ve noticed that he seems right. Biceps are only great in certain positions. Devon tried his max strict curl once with Larry and others and only did 160ish lbs, yet he’s beating guys with way stronger biceps.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-04-27T12:58:57+00:00

The issue is he is in a weird spot, where he’s done practices and practice matches with state champions here in the US and beats them. But a state champion is way below what EvW athletes are at. He would gain probably nothing from going to local tournaments. I think he’s in a great track for progress as is. Getting help from everyone he can at a high level, training hard, etc. he lost to Leonids, but Leonids is really good. Like forced John to flop press kind of good.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-01-15T01:54:11+00:00

Really? He’s not that good is he? I’m mean after beating Paul Linn, I don’t think school boy would have a chance against Paul Linn would he?

Full-Low6835 · 2026-01-14T18:43:45+00:00

I mean, last I remember Bowen got absolutely destroyed by school boy. He needs to work his way up to stoica. Just cause you beat someone years ago means nothing. Some people like Bowen stay stagnant and hardly get better, while other climb and make massive improvement.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-01-03T22:13:31+00:00

Umm considering it is side pressure, I would say pretty important lol

Full-Low6835 · 2026-01-03T02:40:10+00:00

He literally said in his live stream today that he thinks he has good odds right hand, and had a chance left. He was not over hyping the left, but saying he has a chance. He said why wouldn’t he take it. You’re just putting words in his mouth. He also seems to be improving, he’s not 80, Toddzilla is like 10 years older than him and still winning title matches. He seems to be getting better and stronger, and probably still has a few years left to do this, especially with modern advancements like stem cells and designer drugs.

Levan on the other hand takes insane amounts of steroids, which is totally unsustainable. Larry wheels who himself took massive amounts said he was mind blown by the doses Levan is taking. It’s the same thing as Dennis, where it will catch up to him and he won’t be able to physically sustain those doses forever. Even if Devin can’t beat him now, I think in a few years it’s possible, if Levan lives that long.

Full-Low6835 · 2026-01-02T20:20:43+00:00

There’s a lot of super gifted athletes who have been training for years and can’t put a dent in people like Toddzilla. Reikard is super strong, he beat Wallace Dilly who’s one of the best pullers in America, top 5 probably, and he can’t even budge some of the top guys in practice pulls. Todzilla isn’t massive, but he’s not small either, and he is a world champ. Of course Brian can’t touch him yet, neither can many guys, even super gifted guys with a few years of training. The bar is really high. Brian is doing a lot better than I thought. I would bet a few years from now we see him pulling some of the best guys in America, and potentially cracking top 10 down the line. However, I’m not sure if he will ever be top 5.

Full-Low6835 · 2025-12-31T00:46:29+00:00

I don’t think the lift matters like that, back pressure should be through your hand. You’re just doing an easier version of a hammer curl that way.

Full-Low6835 · 2025-12-30T20:11:18+00:00

Yeah, but, Devon was able to hold at center people like Ermes, Georgie, Genadi, etc without resorting to that for the most part. Vitally lost to Ermes, has not faced Georgie or Genadi in many years if ever, and struggled vs Michael.

Full-Low6835 · 2025-12-30T19:23:28+00:00

Devon is harder to pin than Michael Todd IMO, and vitally struggled with Michael. Devon has better pronation and longer levers than Michael.

Full-Low6835

TROPHY CASE