This video is a response to the one below made by me....
Here is an example of how a evolutionist will try to debunk something with a stupid response because they cannot debunk it "scientifically". The number one goal of an evolutionist that cannot debunk something, that supports creation, is to other wise make it "look stupid". Like I say to most who do this: Is this the best you can do? Also it is not uncommon for an evolutionist to make claims about education that he does not have (Example pic ). This is to make his stupid response video sound like it has "credibility" because: "I have education in that field". Sorry, it's very unlikely that you do. Classes that teach it (petroleum engineering) are not very abundant.
Just to show that the technology exists and is well beyond an evolutionist's comprehension. Here is the process for making quick oil (Thermal conversion process)...
Thermal Conversion Process (steps 1-5):
1) Preparing the organic and inorganic feed with water.
2) Heating the siurry, under pressure, to reaction temperature.
3) Depolymerization reaction: Separating the organic from the inorganic.
4) Inorganic material goes to solid storage.
5) Hydrolysis reaction: Water splitting complex molecules into simpler units.
Thermal Conversion Process (steps 6 and 7):
6) Separation of gases, renewable diesel, water and remaining solids.
Plants are already up and running. The only problem is the smell. The plants produce a smell that is like burning hair. So people complain.
h8uall66 did not do his research. If he were training to be a "petroleum engineer", as he claims, he would have done this and would have known this information. I left the link in my video to all this information so there is really no excuse. But like most evolutionists, he would prefer to stick his head in the sand like Paul Palmer, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Yale 1973 did when he wrote this webpage: Response to Changing World Technologies. Where he basically ignores that the process is already being used. And to keep his webpage "looking true", and the opposed technology looking like a hoax or fraud. He refuses to update the page by leaving a link to the actual company that is now using the technology because he would have to admit that he was wrong. Something that most evolutionists "never" like to do.
h8uall66 however did make some intelligent remarks in his understanding that who has the money controls most of what gets accepted as being true, and taught in school and society. Even to the point that he also makes the comment that if the creationists had such a resourse, they could have their ideas in the mainstream. Which shows that the only reason evolution is accepted as true fact is because the people with the "money" support it. So therefore it is a forced truth through means of control through the ability to buy and pay people off. Which means that evolution is more politically true than scientifically true. Money should never be the issue over the truth of ideas. If science were actually looking for truth, money would be spent on all ideas and theories equally. And not on just one and all it's support foundational ideas.
Each time a evolutionist tries to make a point about things they know nothing about, and try to make themselves look well educated in the process by making false claims about their own knowledge. They usually end up revealing things about evolution, or themselves, that makes them look even worse to those with a trained eye to decipher what is really being said. Lying for something, to make it look more true, does not change the reality of what is really true regardless of what it is. Refusing to have a neutral mind only hurts the progress of science as all evidence is made to conform to current accepted theory. Which is not science.
