 welcoming everyone while looking for a good dialogue. If you're looking for even more fantastic debates, please don't forget to like and subscribe, including tonight's debate on Is the Earth 6,000 Years Old with our debaters PhD Tony T jump Christopher and Sal here to help us find out and if you enjoy what either of them have to say our guest links are in the description below and with that I'm actually gonna hand it over to the negative so that they can give their opening statements. The floor is all yours. OK, so evidence is essentially novel test of predictions. You have a hypothesis and the hypothesis that can look at the data and then infer things we don't know yet and get those correct is evidence of the hypothesis. Just being able to look at the data and fit it into your hypothesis isn't evidence. Anybody can do that. If you could say a leprechaun farted out all of the universe five minutes ago and that would be consistent with all of the data we see. So simply being able to try to make the evidence fit your hypothesis is insufficient to actually justify any hypothesis. What you need is novel testable predictions, which means new stuff and stuff we don't already know yet. Not the same things we've already seen that we can predict about the future and we can test for it and see if it's true. And if you can do that, you have evidence. And so if my opponents can provide such a thing, I would be wonderful to hear it. But as far as I know, I'm unaware of any such claim of anyone who believes the world is 6,000 years old and I will pass it over to Tori. Greetings, ladies and gentlemen. Amy, can I share my screen at this point to make a presentation? Yes, you can. OK. All right. So I just want to start by saying that geocrinology is a mature scientific discipline and more than likely you've got no training in it and you're probably not in a position to adjudicate sort of controversies in it. And there are two options for remedying that one, three years undergrad, two years post-grad in the specific discipline. And at that point, you'll be able to understand the literature. You'll be able to begin to understand it and the complexities involved. There's a quite extensive literature on geocrinology with dedicated journals and even individual techniques with individual on with their own journals. The other option you can use is the old maxim to give my language money talks, but bullshit walks. Over the past 400 years, we have seen significant improvements in life expectancy, reduction in infant mortality, improved power sources, transport, communication, etc. And our estimate of the age of the earth has changed from 6,000 years, which was accepted as scientifically valid 300, 400 years ago, to 4.6 billion years, which is accepted now. Now, you may think that the age of the earth has no link to all of this other stuff, but you would be incorrect. Over the past 30 years, geocrinology has come to play an increasingly significant role in mineral exploration in finding and exploiting mineral deposits. So the mining companies in order to provide you with the with the minerals you use in your phones, your cars, your computers, your batteries, they depend on very efficient exploration strategies and geocrinology plays a pivotal role. One of the common young earth creationist arguments is that they will pick contaminated or compromised samples or poorly used measuring techniques, and they will argue that well, on that basis, everything is wrong. That's not logically valid. It's not a logically valid construction. The existence of some samples for which a technique does not work doesn't mean that it's wrong for all samples. If we use the existence of measuring distance, there are multiple techniques for measuring distances on various length scales. If we tried to use aircraft radar to detect tooth cavities, it wouldn't work. And that would surprise nobody, we wouldn't then assume that nobody can detect cavities, or indeed that measuring distances is just impossible. But this is the line of argument that we're expected to believe from many young earth creationists. Just to briefly survey some of the techniques available to us, we have dendro chronology, valve chronology, valves are lake and river sediments that form annually. We've got ice core chronologies, speliathem chronologies, stalagmites and stalactites are examples of speliathems. We've got rare, we've got dozens of forms of radiometric dating. And we also have cosmogenic exposure age dating. None of these techniques yield ages restricted to 6000 years or less. And when we in detail perform into comparisons, they agree with one another quite well. So here's an example of ice core data. That red rectangle tells us about the limit of the valve chronology. So the ice core data extends back way further than the dendro chronology data but where they overlap, it agrees. Down the bottom is marine ice core data. These are marine isotope data. These are taken from samples all over the world where they sample the oxygen in the shells. And they find out that there are variations in the oxygen isotope ratios of the entire ocean that match regardless of which location you take. Here's a plot of the aggregated data. And that red rectangle shows where the ice core data is. These peaks here, 157, 911, these are interglacial periods. Those are the ones 268, 10, etc. Those are glacial maxima. So those are, you know, the ice ages of the last two million years. And we can see that the record goes way back. You know, there are hundreds, well, there's more than 100 of these oxygen isotope stages. And we can look at particular records. For instance, here are some sea level records from Scandinavia. And we can see, you know, if we're to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, then these records would have to be scrunched up to the right somehow. But that isn't physically possible, because we have these successions of shorelines that formed. If you make these, if you make these too fast, you don't have time for the shoreline indicators to form. So you cannot accelerate this process to the point that it, to the point that it makes sense. There are other problems as well. In the geological record, we have these thick diamic diet layers. These are formed on the peripheries of glaciers. And they're rather large. Here, for instance, you can see the nanto-otelite, the diamic diet layer there. They come from, we've got samples from Canada, Australia, California, China, Spalbar. These occur globally. And they correspond to what's called snowball earth events. Here we have an example from Oman. And you note that red rectangle there, that's 500 meters. So we have glacial deposits of more than a kilometer thickness in multiple phases in Oman. In the young earth creationist timeline, when and how did this occur? These are observational data that my opponents must explain how and how this occurred in their 6000-year timeline. Anyway, that's the end of my presentation. And all right, we're just going to bring that screen share to an end and with that, oh no, you're fine. And with that, it will bring the end of the negative and we're going to hand it over to the opening, the affirmative for their opening statements. Floor is all yours, gentlemen. All right, I'll go first. And then I'll let Sol have it for six minutes, right? Six minutes. And you guys, well, you guys can share that any way you want it, but... Yeah, it's 12, like, maximum, right? Yeah, but... All right, well, there was one billion people in the year 1800, okay, and then by 1985, there was five billion people. So you just determine the growth rate of population. It's pretty easy to do. And you could actually take the square footage of everybody in the world and concentrate them into Jacksonville, Florida. It wouldn't be very comfortable, but it wouldn't be as crowded as an elevator gets. So just based on the rate at which the human population grows, there should be significantly more people on the planet than there is what we see today. So human growth rate population, you know, you take everybody in Africa one million years ago, as they say, and you're either going to get a lot of people or you're going to get an extinction event because you have a bottleneck of all these people in one location for, you know, a million years, you're going to have a serious in-breathing problem. So I don't know, I'm pretty convinced just based on that on that one thing. But let's move on. The moon is getting farther away from the earth. No, I'm kidding. We won't. I want to give you a headache for a second. And then short period comments, okay, we won't get into that. But there's several ways that you can determine that the earth, you know, is not millions of years old. Okay, a limit of at least 100,000 years is there. Now the only way that you would get 6,000 would be from the bible. There are ways to scientifically, you know, correlate data with what the bible is claiming and then you can get, you know, you can get a model and see if that's probable, see if it's statistically likely for it to happen and, you know, with all of the evidence that we have for a young earth, a earth that is only thousands and not billions of years old, I think it's a pretty logical and rational conclusion to reach. On top of all of the scientists that have PhDs in various fields of research, including geocrinology, that are creationists. The Sahara Desert is growing, you know, constantly. It's been estimated that it began growing around 4,000 years ago. The rate of 30 miles per year. So it grows pretty fast because the wind is blowing all the all the sand and stuff on the vegetated areas causing it to die and to dry out. So the desert is constantly growing. Well, based on the bible, there was a flood around 4,500 years ago. So the biggest steps that you can find should be, you know, around 4,000 years old within that spectrum. And it certainly is the same thing with trees. You know, some of the oldest known living trees, you know, we're not talking about their fossils, they're beneath all of those trees, you know, Stanley, we're talking about trees that are, you know, that are known to have been in the ground growing. You know, the oldest one that is out there is no older than 5,000 years. So we're getting close to the to the bible. Just oil and gas deposits prove, you know, that there was a flood 4,500 years ago. So you take the evidence for a flood all the ways that you can limit the age of the earth to, you know, at least less than 100,000. And you get a pretty good model, you get a pretty good probability that, you know, the bible is correct. The historical account of the bible actually happened. You know, there are flood legends all over the world, but we're not talking about the flood, we're talking about the age there. So the flood is relevant though. It's, you know, you have to have a flood to be able to prove that the earth is 6,000 years old. Otherwise it really, it's not making any sense. But nonetheless, the oldest known written languages that can be reasonably reconstructed or already modern, sophisticated and complete and that they don't go back, you know, look at any secular, any non-christian, you know, university published literature, none of them go back to any more than 5,000 years ago. Agriculture is estimated to be, you know, started around 10,000 years ago. So the bible says around 6,000 years ago, God made everything around 4,500 years ago. There was a flood and the scientific evidence is conclusive that there was both a flood and this earth cannot be millions of years old. We can get into it individually in the discussion, but I'm going to yield to Salma. Thank you so very much and there's actually about seven minutes left right over to you Salma. Okay, I'm going to share my screen. I'd like to thank PhD Tony T. Chump and Christopher and you Amy for letting me speak today. I used to be a believer in evolution and I was a Christian theistic evolutionist and then I became an old earth creationist. The complexity of life seemed too severe and then I began to entertain young earth creationism because life looked young and that made me believe the bible more and I was more willing to read it literally. So here is a scientific journal quote contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations. Why have we not died 100 times over? There is a paradox of why humanity is even here. We're finding out the genome's deteriorating and that should put a limit on how long we could have even been around. It's looking like life could not have evolved and I will point out despite the fact that sometimes we get young earth creationists are not the best represented. I work for this gentleman. He's taught he's a research professor at one of the top schools in the United States. He's a famous inventor. His inventor in the Smithsonian National Museum of American History had fed starving billions. It's a gene gun. He was an atheist. He became a creationist and he had done research on the decaying genome and that persuaded me on the privilege of working with him. So he's a young earth creationist now. The other two people also graduated from the top schools in the United States, MIT and Harvard. One of them is a professor of molecular cell biology and the other is very accomplished biomedical engineer. I need to point out kind of just trying to tar us creationists is not knowing anything. I don't think that's completely fair. This gentleman was a exploration geologist for Chevron. He was a professor at a secular university and he's a young earth creationist. He's now teaching at the Institute of Creation Research and that really is a step down as far as prestige and money but he's sincere. He's he can deal with the things that PhD Tony had mentioned earlier and you know I'm interested in learning and I do respect that Tony has his reservations but you can't just dismiss all of us and say we don't know. He has a PhD in this and he's taught he's been a professor of this. So you just can't say it's a done deal. Also there is Jay Keebert. He is explored and I have happened to have had dinner with him just tonight at the Creation Research Conference here in Lynchburg, Virginia. He has a PhD in physics from University of Texas at Dallas and he's studied weather and climate and he studied the ice cores. He comes to a different conclusion and I you know it unfortunately it's not in my area. My area has been biology. I have been disillusioned by the claims of a biogenesis researcher. I think I've come to believe that that body of research is delusional at best, fraudulent at worst, same for most of evolutionary theory. It's garbage. It doesn't matter how many journals you have, how many articles you published, whether the data agrees or not and it's been embarrassing for evolutionary theory just in the last two months. The paper came out about K-A-K-S ratios. I know that's technical. It's falsified tens of thousands possibly of evolutionary papers. So the number of journals, the number of papers, the number of careers and mortgages paid is not a measure for the accuracy of a theory. I had, anyway, John Sanford has published in prestigious scientific journal Nature. I myself had had the privilege of doing a springer nature reference work critical of evolutionary biology consistent with the idea that the human genome is deteriorating very fast. Regarding, I mean notwithstanding, PhD Tony had very good things. I don't think I have answers for them and I respect that and we have to admit that, but there are also stuff on our side that is problematic. There are chemical dates all the way down to the Cambrian that are not consistent such as racemization. There are things like oxidation, the presence of peptide bonds, etc. I've looked at this and I began to say maybe there is a possibility this is all wrong. Let's have a reset and then these dinosaur tissues. It's the chemical dates. It's not just that it's soft. It's the chemical dates. We'd have to rewrite chemical kinetics and some of the physics associated with this. I'm not here to absolutely prove the earth is young. I'm here to argue that the case is not shut and that there are respectable people from respectable universities who've had very accomplished scientific careers that are skeptical of the mainstream claims and I don't blame them. Here's something. I mean it's known that the Earth's magnetic field is decaying, it's decayed maybe about 11% in the last 200 years. We don't know where it's going. We don't know where it's been, but this is a testable hypothesis. If the Earth's magnetic field decays say over the next 2,000 years or even 10,000 long before our lifetimes will be passed away by then, but at least in principle this is a testable hypothesis. Civilization, generations from now they might be able to know and if the Earth's magnetic field is stripped away, the ozone layer will be gone and all sorts of cosmic things will be getting through our atmosphere. This would be bad and we have to question whether civilization will continue. But this would also raise the question then, you know, why did decay? We actually don't know a lot of the reasons. We can guess that speculations are not empirical evidence. We haven't actually dug down into the Earth. There's also the faint young sun paradox. There's a contradiction here, you know, with astrophysics. You can look it up. I'm just citing Wikipedia articles and also finally there is the problem of radioactive or supposed radioactive decays. There are other mechanisms involved. Here are some papers. We can talk about it. Only recently this heavy electron quasi-particle thing came up and I see that I've hit seven minutes and thank you for your time. Thank you so very much. In fact, thank you Ph.D. Tony, T-Jump, Christopher, and Sal for both sides opening statements for Is the Earth? 6000 years old. Once again, if you enjoyed the show, please don't forget to like and subscribe. But we are now going to move into 50 minutes of open dialogue, which means gentlemen, the floor once again is all yours. I just wanted to start by saying I saw no novel testable predictions. It seemed like they were just post-talk reasoning to try to look at the data and make it fit their model like I predicted. Secondly, measuring the age of some things that decay isn't an evidence of that's the ultimate age of the Earth. For example, my body is decaying. You can measure it at approximately 33 years old. Does that mean the world is 33 years old? No, because there were things before it. So the fact that you can measure one thing and see it's changed and you follow the pattern to the extreme without considering any other trinities factors isn't evidence. But if you think that is some ultimate thing that you think can indicate the ultimate age of the Earth, please tell me what that one thing is so we can discuss it. I gave a testable prediction. You might not see it materialize in your lifetime. Maybe generations in the future. It doesn't matter whether it's novel. Novel or not. Yes, it does. The magnetic field, it could decay. It would cause problems if the magnetic field were very much stronger. I mean, we don't know if it's a linear decay curve or exponential, but let's say it's an exponential decay curve. And Alan Barnes, who was a professor at a secular university, he's a young Earth creationist. He's a professor at a secular university in the United States. He was looking at the magnetic data and he said, okay, even 50,000 years ago if we use exponential decay curve, there's magnetic energy stored in the magnetic field there. If it decayed, a lot of that energy would release and basically most of the Earth would have become molten from that energy release. So, you know, there's a lot that we don't know. We can guess. And I'm just saying it's not an open and shut case. Yes, it is. Okay, Sal, you're overlooking, you know, it doesn't matter what any individual says if he doesn't say it in a peer review journal. It simply doesn't matter. If you want the guys on your side to be taken seriously, you need to get their claims past peer review. And that hasn't happened. Furthermore, we have observational evidence. I was just silent for you. I'm sorry. I apologize here. We have paleomagnetic data extending back 650 million years. So, to claim that the decay observed over the past couple of hundred is indicative of somehow the Earth's magnetic field is going to somehow decay into nothingness is quite simply incorrect. We've got no evidence of that. You're extrapolating backwards and we know what the strength of the Earth's magnetic field was. In fact, in the figure I showed you, we showed fluctuations in cosmogenic isotope abundances, which are a result of fluctuations in the magnetic field. So, we can reconstruct that with great precision. You brought up the faint young sun paradox, which is about why there is liquid water on Earth's surface in early sediments when the sun was 30% weaker than it is now. So, the argument is the sun was cooler. There shouldn't have been liquid water on Earth's surface. This is easily explained by greenhouse gas forcing. The atmospheric abundance of carbon dioxide and methane was significantly higher at that point in Earth's history and thus Earth's surface temperature was higher. The points you're raising have been resolved in literature and to present them as though they haven't, to present them as though this has never been considered by the scientific institutions of the world is simply wrong and it's wrong enough to get to the point of lying. It is so egregious and everybody's claims about genetics and and racemization rates and that sort of stuff is irrelevant. We're not talking about how long life has existed. We're not talking about how old the human race is and Christopher's argument of extrapolating population growth over the last 300 years when we've had a massive improvement in medical technology and a massive reduction in infant mortality and you extrapolated that backwards. That's sheer nonsense. We obviously didn't have access to modern health care or modern, you know, food production or modern, you know, modern shelter or, you know, heat production. Obviously, mortality rates were higher in the past so extrapolating, taking modern period population growth and extrapolating it backwards is ill-conceived. Anyway, I've responded to a bunch of points. Off you go. First off, I apologize to you, Tony. I shouldn't have interrupted you so thank you for pointing that out. I try to be civil. Thank you, sir. The counter- Thank you. Sorry, sorry. Just saying thank you and I'll try to extend you the same cut. So, uh, paleomagnetic data to 650 million years. Circular reasoning is not a basis of science. That is circular reasoning. We don't have independent confirmation that it is 650 million years. And, uh, you know, that's just Could you explain that a little bit more? What do you mean? What's circular reasoning? Uh, can you state that figure? Uh, PhD, Tony, you said we have 650, we have paleomagnetic data going back 650 million years. How do you, how can you do, how can you make that assertion without some degree of circular reasoning? You don't actually know that. That's what is at question whether the earth is old. You can't say that we have data going back 650 million years. You're assuming the thing you're trying to prove. That is problematic. The other thing I wanted to say is this whole thing about it having to be approved by peer review, I've seen junk papers going on for 40 years and they're still going on and it's this club, particularly for origins research in the past. Operational science is good. Origin science in the past is not quite as high quality. So stuff that can be experimented on in the present day and have testable predictions, I'm okay with that. But stuff where it's in the deep past, we don't, we have to reconstruct it. And there's not any way to actually experiment and improve it directly. It's subject to kind of like, oh, okay, whatever, you know, whatever's accepted. And I just cited where thousands of papers had been refuted regarding the K-A-K-S ratios in evolutionary biology. It was the disaster. I saw it coming and yet, you know, couldn't get stuff critical of it in peer review and now they're caving. Just to waste the time. And so I'm just saying I don't think that that's should be the standard. Well, I think you offered a novel prediction for Tom, though, because we can predict that the magnetic field will completely and utterly be gone before the next four to five thousand years. It's not going to be there. So we just have to wait, I guess, because I mean, if you want something absolutely brand new for a novel prediction, we're going to have to use things like that or things like, you know, there's going to be a new world order that controls the whole world and they're going to make everybody take a mark. That is a novel prediction. So we'll just have to wait and see. The Bible says that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord, the glory of God, the Father. That's a novel prediction and I guarantee you it's coming to pass. Well, you're right. Those are novel predictions. But I was kind of asking for ones that you've already made in like progress of science. So like, what in geology is we looked at double hinted jaw joints in fossils and somebody predicted that they would be fused together in a future fossil that we'd find that we haven't found yet. And then they found it like, oh, we predicted we'd find that because we looked at the past data and heard something about the future and then did a test and found that that was the result. Same with lots of these kinds of predictions for TikTok was one in geology. There's tons of them. Like science makes tons and tons of predictions and then they get confirmed. So I was looking for like a novel prediction that creationists have made that was confirmed at some point already. Like obviously, if I die and go to heaven meet God, that's great evidence. It's a great novel test of prediction, but I want something that's already been confirmed horribly. I got you. Well, what about this? What about the fact that virtually every scientific field of research was established by a creationist? So they had to make a prediction at that point. And then all of those predictions came true. And here we are because that's how they even established a scientific method that everybody agreed upon was to establish a hypothesis, go through various blind tests and produce the same results. Most poop toddlers. Can I respond to that? Yeah, I just want to say five seconds. So most shit shovelers were also Christian at one point. Does that mean that shoveling shit is a Christian profession? Well, I would attack that argument slightly differently. Yes, everybody started out believing that the earth was made 6,000 years ago and created by God. But then we started looking at the evidence and it didn't back that claim up. And so we adjusted our beliefs, right? Based on the evidence available to us. That's what science is. We started out 300, 400 years ago with everybody, every scientist, believing that the earth was 6,000 years ago. And we're not there now because that's not what the evidence suggests. And I produced evidence in my presentation of the accuracy and reliability of radiometric dating. It is used to identify the location of mineral bearing deposits. Mining companies pay for those results and those results are accurate and reliable. You have done nothing to suggest that that is not the case. And so if you accept that that is the case, then you must accept that radiometric dating produces accurate results. If you are disputing that that is the case, where is your evidence? Amy, can I talk? Amy, I actually, I didn't have a chance. Okay, this is a novel testable prediction. This was written by Zepero and Dolan in like the last two years, I think even 2021. There has been data that we can have lower energy nuclear reactions. And a colloquial fusion that unfortunately has bad connotations and definitely there have been cranks. But I began to think about this because I was looking at alternative means of changing nuclear structure. There can be electrical and chemical means. The first thing that I looked at was photonuclear processes. And there was a paper in Nature 1985 that lightning can cause neutrons. That was confirmed in 2017 that the photonuclear processes can change nuclear structure. Although at the million electron volts, that's still high energy, relatively high energy reaction. What's the novel testable prediction? Could you explain a loss? What's the prediction? Sure. No, that's a great question. Novel testable prediction is we can find out that there are ways that nuclear structure can be changed outside of radioactive decay. In such a way that the parent-daughter proportions could be misleading. So that's a novel testable prediction. And I'm throwing this one out here. So this one, when I'd studied solid state physics, there are these things called quasi particles. You can look up in Wikipedia entry, quasi particles, whole list of them. Quasi particles, they call it fictitious. It's really, you can say fictitious, but with real effect. What that means is it's really the collective action of the entire crystal lattice that can make it appear, you can model it as if it is a single particle. There are these particles called heavy electron quasi particles. Sorry to interrupt again. How did the 6,000-year-old Earth or lead to this? Please, that's quite all right, T-Jump. That's a great question. This is questioning the change that there may be mechanisms that can change nuclear structure other than radioactive decay that will give signatures that if you assume it's radioactive decay, you're going to get the wrong inference about the age of the rock or whatever. Okay, so I have a question then. Why do radiometric ages agree with cosmogenic exposure ages? I don't know. That's a great question, sir. Why do the observed rates of tectonic motion, when extrapolated backwards by radiometric ages, fit with the geometry observed? For instance, the Hawaiian and Emperor Island archipelago, if you trace it down, it has a huge kink in it from the time when India ran into Eurasia. Why is the radiometric timing of that event coincident with the distances traveled using modern rates of travel? If the rates of travel were different in the past, that shouldn't happen. If the radiometric ages are wrong, that shouldn't happen. Why is there agreement there? I didn't finish my point, sir. If I could, I would appreciate it. Okay, so creationists have postulated a variety of mechanisms. I'm throwing one out here that is a testable prediction. If we can achieve low temperature nuclear reactions, the mechanism could be compression to create electricity. These are piezoelectric effects or even triboelectric effects. It can change the parent and daughter products. So notwithstanding your points, let me point out some other things. In the journal Nature, there was research that was controversial. Italian scientists battled to halt controversial research. That research was neutron emissions and brittle rocks during compression tests. That's the reference there. This quasi-electron particle model could possibly explain it. So this is testable. It can be falsified and then it's done with. But on figure 13 there, citing McCubray, there are all these low energy nuclear reactions. Low energy would be like, say, in the range of 100 electron volts or less, which is phenomenal. And that's arguing that this could corrupt the data from radiometric dating. Is that right? Yes. So that's a testable prediction. I'm not saying it's proven. I'm not saying it's right. It is testable. And I think it should be pursued. It has people who are interested in physics as I am and also like renewable energy or not renewable alternative energy, clean energy, should be interested in this. It's also an exciting field. Solid state physics has been called school physics because it's so complicated that sometimes all you can do is just kind of tinker around and see what happens. This could change it. So notwithstanding the fine point, the fine criticism that PhD Tony put forward, we have to find out why it apparently agrees. But the one thing I know in talking with Tim Clary, I've met him down at the ICR and I see him at conferences, is that he doesn't agree that he doesn't think that the data agree. I've seen stuff that looks a little bit cherry-picked and confirmation-based. But I'm going to grant you're more knowledgeable about this, Tony, and I'm going to defer to you and say, just simply, I think your point should be respected. On the other hand, some of the things that I put on the table, like the faint young sun paradox, this whole thing about greenhouse gases. Let's grant that for the sake of argument. It would have to be fine-tuned to adjust to the sun as its output increased. The greenhouse gas has to get lessened and it has to be done at such a fine-tuned level. It's kind of short of, it's just short of a miracle if not a miracle. No, it's genuinely not because we developed life forms that consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. That's because carbon dioxide was abundant. Tony, could you explain to the audience what the sun thing is so we understand what you're talking about? The faint young sun paradox, we find very old surface minerals that show characteristic iron banding, which is associated with water-soluble iron ions. This is evidence that there was liquid water on the surface of the earth four billion years ago, roundabout. At this point, the sun would have been very young and not very hot, so it would have been about 30% cooler than it is now. If the sun were 30% cooler, earth should be a snowball, basically. In fact, earth should be a snowball now without the effect of greenhouse gases. Mean temperature based solely on solar energy, earth's mean emission temperature is minus 15 degrees Celsius. It would have been even cooler way back then. That isn't really a problem because there was lots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at that point. There was lots of volcanic emissions, lots of carbon dioxide there, and it would explain why there was liquid surface. Obviously, we weren't there at the creation, but then again, it's worth pointing out that the author of Genesis wasn't present at the creation of the earth either. We're going on what we have observational evidence to determine. The faint young sun paradox vanishes if you just have greenhouse gases in this argument about the fine tuning. We had a lot of cyanobacteria in various other life forms that consumed the carbon dioxide, produced oxygen, and then there was a big die off as oxygen became super abundant in the atmosphere. It doesn't require fine tuning in the way that Sal suggests. This is a well understood process in science. I just think that this is throwing stuff out. Again, we've got all of these different dating techniques. Sal's argument is that there's some problem with radiometric dating, except that it produces reliable consistent results. If there was an error with it, it wouldn't. Once again, do I need to show the sea level curves? We had these sea level curves showing viscoelastic relaxation. The viscosity of the earth hasn't changed in the way that Sal suggests. We can prove this by looking at rotation data from the historical record. Historical eclipse data allow us to reconstruct earth's rotation history. It's polar wobble for the last few thousand years. There's been no significant change in viscosity. This entire massive release of heat and everything was molten and that sort of stuff, well, if the lithosphere was that molten, was that hot, then the emperor island change wouldn't have persevered. They wouldn't still be there relic on the bottom of the Pacific ocean. They'd have relaxed into absolutely nothing. We wouldn't still be seeing post-glacial rebound in centers of former glaciation. We wouldn't be able to see the relaxation signature following the Huronian glaciation. You still haven't addressed how you get kilometer thick glacial debris fields across the globe. In California, China, Brazil, Canada, Sweden, Australia, Oman, Namibia, we have these kilometer thick glacial deposits. There's a reason it's called glacial slowness. These deposits are very, very finely ground dust. These glaciers ground the rock up into a very fine silt and then deposited it. You've also come up with no explanation for how the oxygen isotope signature of the entire ocean, earth's entire ocean, can vary, can move up and down on the time scales that you're suggesting. We know why it happens. Let me address some of these points that you're making real quick. I just don't want to remember any of them or lose my train of thought. You're saying that there's ice everywhere. Well, that's not really a problem. There was a global flood which produced all of that ice according to our model. You're saying that we haven't offered that explanation to us personally, but the creationist has put forth valid arguments for the ice age. With all due respect, we're not talking about the ice age. We're talking about the Snowball Earth, the Huronian period, which was about 600. What you would be thinking of is the most recent glacial cycle, which are driven by the millennium. You really want to know why the atmosphere is varying going back and forth? No. What I want to know is how in your model, these glaciers, let's say that you've explained how they exist. How did they produce a kilometer of erosion features? They can't have been there that long. We've got erosion features from the last glacial cycle. The ice sheets were only at their maximum extent for five to 8,000 years, and we can see how much erosion they left. They didn't leave kilometer-thick deposits of fine, silty clay, whereas these ones 640 million years ago did. How would the glaciers there long enough to produce this kilometer-thick glacial sediment? Even if I accept your explanation for how they're there, how were they there that long? Aren't you assuming that sedimentation or whatever that builds up, that it's building based on today's current rates? Well, please explain to me the physical process by which you can accelerate glacial erosion. I'd be thrilled to hear your answer, because you can't. You produced the entire glacier rapidly. No, that won't work. Why not? Okay, because if you increase the mass of the glacier too quickly, the glacier just falls over. It won't accumulate enough basal shear stress. You need the basal shear stress to be there for a long time to cause the erosion. It's like if you get a bulldozer and you just clear off the land, you're not going to get fine silt, which is what you're suggesting. If we do it all very quickly and we just bulldoze the stuff out of the way, that's fine, but it won't be fine silt. In order to get that fine silt, you need to be doing the erosion very, very slowly and gradually. You can't just speed this up. It doesn't work. Well, you can speed it up. It doesn't have to be within a week. You could stretch it out. It's a global flood that lasts nearly a year. Yeah, I'll give you a year. Show me how it's done. You can have as much ice as you want and as much rock as you want. Show me how it's done. You're talking about shear stress that needs to be available at the foundation of the glacier in order to make it possible. Wouldn't that shear stress be available? How is it that you can't establish the shear stress catastrophically with a downpour of super cold hail and ice coming from the atmosphere onto the earth and then building up? Because that won't cause fine silt. If you hit a rock with a large lump of ice, you're going to get splinters of rock. You're not going to get this finely ground sediment. I'll remind you of what these deposits looked like, if I may. Can I weigh in? I'm sorry. Yeah, sure. I'll just bring up my figure. Okay, so here we have the various layers of clay that have been the very fine-grained clay that has been ground up and they've had this debris dropped into them. And here at this stage we're seeing something that's two meters thick. But if we go over here, for instance, sorry, yeah, we see that it's many hundreds of meters thick and in the Amman in the Amman stuff. And then you've got the question of how you get that cap dolomite on top of it. That requires a bunch of the carbon dioxide in the air needs to be absorbed into the oceans and then deposited as cap dolostone. And that needs to happen without killing everything in the ocean by acidifying it. So how fast do you think that can happen? You can't just say, well, it can speed up. No, it can't. Just like you can't build shorelines instantaneously, this takes time, right? Everything takes time. And you can't just say, well, this physical process that I've got no evidence for happened over and over again. This physical process that I can't. Because there are frozen mammoths that have undigested food in their stomach. You can't just do that. The mammoth has to be rapidly frozen or if that to happen, there are evidence of meteor fragments within the ivory tusks of the mammoths indicating they were probably catastrophically buried by a downpour of super cold hail, ice, snow, rock, etc. Nonsense. Sheer, unadulterated nonsense with not a scintiller of scientific evidence to back it up. No, you don't. What is the explanation for the mammoth freezing? How do we explain that without imagination? So mammoths freezing very quickly, they can fall into rivers or marshes. They can get stuck in marshes and if it's very cold, basically you just need water. Water has a very high thermal inertia and warm blooded animals die very quickly of hypothermia if they're surrounded in water. You can have astonishingly severe snow storms or whatever, but these claims that you can just speed up glacier formation and again, you have these 200 glacial cycles that you have to explain. 200 glacial cycles. Not one, not one glacier formation, 200 glacial cycles and then before that, you need to have an atmosphere flip flopping, right? That's what that graph means. Those are actually oxygen isotope from marine animals, so that's the ocean. Right, well the global flood is going to produce catastrophic wind patterns and that's going to vary. Oxygen isotope. So the oxygen isotope content of the oceans is changing. The ratio between oxygen 18 and oxygen 16, that's what this is. These are oxygen isotope ratios. The higher they are, the lower they are, the hotter it is. The higher they are, you note that the scale is inverted here. So the higher they are, the cooler it is, the lower they are, the warmer it is. Or you can look at it as a measure of ice sheet volume because the lighter isotopes get taken out and they get stored in ice sheets. And how do they change? How do you get more of one or the other? Okay, so the process is described here. If there's evaporation of water out of the oceans, the lighter isotopes are preferentially taken up into the clouds and then the heavier isotopes preferentially fall out. So by the time the clouds reach the ice sheet, they're very depleted in oxygen isotopes and the sea and the oceans are correspondingly enriched. And this is why you can see the reverse relationship. If you look at the top, you've got the delta deuterium and down below it the delta oxygen values in the ice sheet core. And down the bottom, you've got the benthic delta O18 and you'll see that these two curves are highly correlated and agree with one another very strongly. And this is a signal of the light isotopes being stored in the ice sheet preferentially or it's warmer. There are more heavier isotopes. And you can see that the isotope abundances in the ocean are acting in the opposite sense. You will note that the scale is opposite. It's between these two. You will also notice something interesting here as well if you look at the dust curves. Before we go into a different one, let's give them a chance to respond. Why do you think there are layers of different densities of isotopes of oxygen that are perfectly layered, that are perfectly the same layers that follow same patterns all over the world? If a global flood happened, you wouldn't expect oxygen isotopes to pattern in this way. It seems very strange. How would you explain that? I don't know. I tried to say something but I'll try to say it again. And unless Sal wants to respond to this, but before you do Sal, catastrophic wind patterns, temperature rising and cooling rapidly in different locations because of global flood increasing for 40 days and 49 still increases for another 150 days progressively. No continents to interrupt the tide. So like 200 foot tidal waves and the north and south poles are freezing during the entire time. So this is why you're seeing the atmosphere go from here to here. How does that change the oxygen isotope levels? Because he was just saying that the oxygen levels change because as the clouds move over towards the poles, they lose their oxygen and that kind of ends up in the oceans. So why can't that happen in a global flood where the fountains of their great deep erupt produce the clouds in the atmosphere and then they all slowly fall towards the north and south poles where the cool spots are? Why can't that happen? There's no evidence that it did. And this is what you're suggesting is the opposite of science. Right? To say why can't something happen is absolutely not science. Why can't there be unicorns? Why can't there be goblins? Why can't there be fairies at the bottom of my garden? Okay, but that is not like ad hominem because why can't we come from a dot that exploded long ago and far away? Why can't we come from a rock? You're trying the Trident-Tested Kent Hovind tactic of trying to derail the debate. No, you actually started attacking. Tony, I think he's asking a genuine question here. So there's a genuine difference between these two and that's one of the models makes testable predictions that we can verify. If this model is, if we came from a dot billions of years ago, what would we expect to see? We expect to see something like the cosmic microwave background radiation, different kinds of gravitational waves from the LEGO experiment. We can make predictions like if this, if our hypothesis is true, here's what we would expect it to see do some test confirm it. Your model doesn't do that. It just says, well, maybe it's the case a leprechaun farted out the universe five minutes ago. Well, unless you can make a prediction based off of that and confirm it, then it's just a just so story. So just being able to say couldn't it be is not evidence. You need to confirm that hypothesis with future predictions. Well, the Bible has made its own prediction since it's been around for at least, you know, 2000 years. It has declared that the earth is a circle. It's hanging on nothing that there was a global flood. The evidence certainly shows that there was a global flood. You know, it's not millions of years old. Okay, I need to I need to interrupt you there because my academic speciality is actually the analysis of paleo sea level and the claim and you've made it multiple times that there was definitely a global flood is simply false. I have published papers personally analyzing paleo sea level data for the past 140,000 years and specifically for the past 30,000 years and your statements here are absolutely wrong. You are absolutely incorrect on this and please desist from lying to me about my academic speciality. And I just want to say guys, feel free to keep on going. But when you're done that slide, tell me and we will. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, no, not at all. I'd like to weigh in at some point. Yes. And it sounded like I did have one more thing to make about one more. Fantastic. So what we will do PhD Tony have a final statement on that thought and then tell me when you're done and we'll hand it over to Sal. Okay, if we have a look at this slide again, you will notice that there is dust, that there is a dust line in it. And that is the amount of dust that can be found in each layer. Now, if the Young Earth creationist argument is true, and the early layers were all put together really, really quickly, then the amount of dust in there should be very small, particularly if it's wet, if it's wet and rainy and there's a flood going on, there shouldn't be any dust, right? Because there's nowhere for the soil to come from. So the fact that we find dust particles in these, in these ice cores, and that the abundance doesn't drop off as you go backwards in time, this argues against the interpretation that all of those earlier layers were put down instantaneously, because if that were true, there should be very little dust in them. But the amount of dust is not reduced as you move down the ice column. So the data we have simply doesn't support the position that you're presenting. And again, if you want to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, that's fine. I don't have a problem. You're free to believe what you want. But you're simply wrong when you say that the evidence backs you up on this. Can I weigh in now? Yes, you can. It's unbelievable academics cannot recognize circular reasoning. You've said you published on the last 4,140,000 years. That's a circular argument, sir. You weren't around. You're making inference. Secondly, I did point out the chemical dates do not agree. So if you want to have all this confirmation bias and ignore the data points I gave, granted, I'm not going to be verbose. I just simply pointed out there's not agreement with the mainstream views concerning the chemical dates. It's an open issue. You have to resolve the chemical kinetics of this. It's the problems all the way down to the Cambrian. I've seen the data and this is going to be testable if that problem persists. So as a matter of principle, it's still an open issue. And you keep using circular reasoning. That's unbecoming of a scientist that you cannot even see that. And it's sickening to hear you keep repeating it. Okay, I acknowledge that there are problems on your side. Are you going to insist that there are no chemical dating problems? And there are anomalies. This isn't a debate about chemical dating. I haven't used chemical dating at any point in my argument. So that is the problem. Chemical dating, and sir, now you're interrupting me. Chemical dating indicates ages of the fossil record. No, it doesn't. Conflicts. To the extent it conflicts with radiometric dating, then there's a problem. And I was pointing out when it was going to be resolved. And then you keep appealing to circular reasoning. That is unbecoming of an academic. No, I'm not. And I'm simply not going to be lied about. You're interrupting me. Yes, because you are lying about me. You claim to be a Christian and you are here violating the Ninth Commandment. Right? You are here lying about me and you are lying to the audience. The assertion that radiometric dating is a circular argument has been debunked multiple times in this debate. Yes, there may be problems with the chemical dating that there may be outstanding controversies. That isn't my field. I'm not going to opine on it, but it is irrelevant to the validity of the various geochronological dating techniques that I have discussed in this presentation. Cosmogenic exposure ages, dendrochronology, virechronology, ice core chronology, spherium chronology, and radiometric dating. They all agree. They all produce consistent ages. And your claim to the contrary is false. It is just false. Sir, I let you talk, and I would appreciate the same courtesy, sir. I was not lying. You're using circular reasoning. I've given you- That is not circular reasoning, sir. Sir, I've given you data points that would question the validity- Hey, Saul, could you- Circular reasoning is like when your premise isn't- Did you show what the circular reasoning was? Yes. He said he had published papers about dating all the way back to 140,000 years. So it's assuming the age of the earth is longer than that. That is already assuming that the premise you're trying to prove. There's a problem with that. And I pointed out, contrary data, that you have these fossil layers that are dated millions and millions of years old, and yet the chemical dates are returning things that are young. So then that is very problematic for all sorts of dating, which would include radiometric. One way to resolve it is I've suggested that there are alternative methods of changing nuclear structure. They can be explored. So, granted, I didn't answer all of his questions. He's not answering all of mine, and that's problematic. And he's insisting that it's a done deal. I'm saying it's an open issue, and we can explore it. So there's a saying- Saul, just to clarify, so he wasn't making the argument that he's published papers about things 500,000 years ago, and therefore the fact that he's published papers means that the world is that old. That wasn't his argument. That would be circular, sure, but he has reasons in those papers that indicate that. And none of the reasons he's presented are radiometric dating. So even if we just grant that radiometric dating is completely useless, none of that would invalidate anything he said. And so that doesn't actually address the position he espoused. So it's not circular reasoning because he has justifications in those papers. He's not specifically just saying, my papers say it's this old, therefore it's this old. That's not the argument. He's just mentioning those reasons of the papers. So it's a separate argument there, and neither of us brought up radiometric dating. We didn't talk about that. One thing he mentioned is the Malinkovitch cycle. So you, PhD Tony, do you believe the Malinkovitch cycle is correct? Is it theory? Yes, generally. So if that's falsified, how problematic would that be for your models? It would be somewhat problematic. What are you suggesting? I mentioned Jake Keeber earlier, and I had dinner with him tonight. He has studied the Malinkovitch cycle. I mean, if you're all interested, he has books published on this and critiques. I am interested only in what he can publish in peer review. I'm not interested in the private opinions or the popular fiction that people disseminate. I am interested in science. I have studied the peer reviewed literature. If he has something meaningful to say, he can present it in the peer reviewed literature. May I ask you, I would presume, sir, you're a peer reviewer? Yes. Could he submit this to you, sir? Well, he could certainly list me as a reviewer on what happens is when you submit a journal to an article, you come up with a list, you submit a list of people that you recommend as reviewers. He could certainly recommend me as a reviewer for a journal article. Sure. If he publishes in a preprint, I mean, would you be willing to read it and critique it? Yes, I would. Okay. All right. I will communicate to him, sir. That's about the only clear thing I could ask. That's very generous of you. And speaking of generosity, we have about five or 10 more minutes of open dialogue, but it sounds like Tea Jump has something right on tip of his tongue. Right back to you. Yeah. Marty and scientists asked, can the Young Earth creationist explain the Pando Forest, which is estimated to be at least 10,000 years old? Because the root system of the Pando Forest in order for the things to grow at a certain rate, the maximum rate of growth would lead to, given the size of the root system, has to be 10,000 years to accommodate the size of the root system. I don't have any comments on that. Can the root not grow any faster than what it does today? It can, but not magic faster. Magic faster. We don't have to involve magic. We can just come up with natural ways in which you can increase the growth rate of whatever you're talking about. Things grow faster. Well, can they grow faster than any living organism that has ever been demonstrated ever? I doubt that is magic. So, and this is a more general problem. There are very large clonal creatures. Pando Forest is the largest one we're aware of. On land, but there are a couple of very large ones. There's a clonal settlement of Posidonia Oceanica in the Mediterranean that covers acres and acres. Well, hundreds of square kilometers, and there's another even larger one off the coast of Western Australia that was discovered recently. So, again, these are clonal animals, well, clonal plants, they spread out their roots and they put up other things. So, the growth rates on these have to be nothing short of astronomical. No, it's not magic. You don't need magic in order to do it. I guarantee it. Look at the Carboniferous Era, if you will. Giant insects, giant fern plants, giant trees. You know, where did those come from? It was a different environment. So, you just need to change the atmosphere and you'll be able to produce things like that. It's not science. It's just, or it's not magic, it's science. Even though science looks like magic sometimes, that's why people study it. Except that they were not trees during that period, right? Right. The Carboniferous Era, there were no trees. Yeah. There are trees that run through multiple seams of coal and earth. Well, again, that's an anecdote that people claim. I'd like you to provide me with a reference to where that is demonstrated. You know, this seems, people keep on bringing this up because they heard it from someone in creation. It's demonstrated worldwide. What are you talking about? No, it hasn't. You know, again, it should be, okay, if it's been demonstrated worldwide, then it should be trivial for you to go, Google up an example and show it to me. Nova Scotia. There you go. All the adjurated trees, Nova Scotia. You could just Google polystrated trees and you get several examples, okay? And then you maybe type in running through multiple layers of coal and you will get examples. And you just pull them up. I have not. So you can pull those up. And while you're pulling those up, I want to ask, so you're thinking that changing the composition of the atmosphere is going to drastically increase cell division so that they can grow roots faster and it's going to grow entire trees in days, minutes. How fast do you think this can go? Because what's going to need to happen is the roots are going to need to grow to this location, grow in a new tree, grow new roots, new tree is going to go in a big line over a distance. So it's going to be at some rates, how fast do you think increasing, I don't know, carbon dioxide or oxygen in the air would make cell division in trees fast enough to pop out a new tree in a few hours? One possibility. Are you looking at the fossilized roots of these trees or what? No, they're alive today. The forest is literally a thing today. It continues to spread. I would say within 4,500 years, that's how they were produced. So not 10,000. You kept that basically in half. There you go. Okay. Let's discuss something that I've allowed you guys to skate on a little bit, which is cosmogenic exposure agitating. Actually, I want to have one more question if I can. And I will say, guys, both of you, whenever you feel like you have gotten your points out and the same with you, sound Christopher, tell me, because then we're going to do outros and then Q&A, but feel free to get these last points out. Javer Jarra asked, can you ask, please ask PhD, Tony, how much energy is necessary in the supposed rain for a year to cover the Earth's surface? That's an absolutely absurd amount of energy. The amount of latent heat that would be released in that process, it's truly ridiculous. I haven't done the calculations, but it's an absolutely astonishing amount of energy. Not as much as the amount of energy that they require to explain tectonic movements over the past of the same period. But it is nothing short of physical absurd to suggest that these physical processes are even possible. But I'm going to go on to cosmogenic isotope dating. Cosmogenic isotope refers to cosmic rays hitting rocks and impacting isotopes there and producing exotic isotopes that are not found naturally. From the accumulation of these isotopes, we can determine how long a particular rock has been exposed to cosmic rays, which is to say it's not been covered. And we can use that, for instance, to demonstrate that the top of the Grand Canyon has an exposure age of 10 million years, whilst two thirds of the way down the wall has been exposed for about two million years. Now, this is a double-edged sword because these cosmogenic isotopes accumulate in the surface layer. So if there are no cosmogenic isotopes, we can tell that there's been a lot of erosion. But if there are cosmogenic isotopes, we can tell that there hasn't been erosion. So these very rapid erosion events that you require in the Mississippi, for instance, or at the mouth of the Ganges to create these tens of thousands of meters thick layers of settlement, it ought to be very easy to detect whether or not that's plausible because everything must have been eroded upriver from that. And there should be no old cosmogenic exposure ages, except that there are old cosmogenic exposure ages, which shows that there hasn't been very rapid erosion, which shows that the erosion processes that created these sediment layers was slow. Because if it was fast, you'd only have young cosmogenic exposure ages. And this is a dating technique that you guys don't know about, don't understand, and can't explain. And it catches you in advice because... Wait a minute. No, because that's not cool. Because you don't want us to lie about you, but then you come on here and make all these claims about us, which are not true. How did you know about cosmogenic exposure age dating? Please feel free to tell me. No, but that doesn't mean that nobody does. That doesn't mean that the creationists haven't come up with an explanation. I think in your mind, we haven't come up with an explanation because that's what you'd like to believe. Well, there's been an explanation. Sal and Christopher, I'm going to let you guys have a chance to finish up the dialogue before we do outros, though I do warn you, if you ask a question, that always bounces it back. So comments are best, but I leave that up to you, Sal, Christopher. So I'll just go first real quick, and I'll let you finish out. So you're saying that at the beginning of your presentation that we weren't basically qualified to talk on the subject. This is for fun. And that's true, you know, that we're not qualified as geoconologists like yourself. You may be qualified, but me and Sal may be not. We don't really need to be qualified, though. We just need to go to the experts and see what they say. And there are many creationists, geoconologists. So that's not a valid argument to appeal to those who have credentials. When there are those who have credentials that you disagree with, the entire peer reviewed process is just a whole bunch of people who disagree with each other. So it's junk science until you can prove it. Basically, you know, by something you can observe, by something everybody can repeat and test, otherwise it's just forensic, theoretics, you know. We don't just have isolated examples of the earth not being millions of years old or being restricted to at least 100,000. Most of the ways that you can calculate an age for the earth, you know, prove that the earth is young. Okay, it's not like we only have one or two examples. They all show that the earth is young. So I score samples, you know, the shifting of the atmosphere back in those days. That's fine. But that doesn't prove, you know, that there wasn't a global flood, which could have produced those results in the ice core to change that layer, the levels of the atmosphere. But Val, you can go now. I pointed out a single ugly fact can destroy the beautiful theory. The chemical dates are still problematic. You're trying PhD Tony and others trying to write it off. I'm sorry, that's not good science. It's very difficult for you guys to just say, this is a problem. I have shown that I said something is problematic for my theory. And I don't feel that that was reciprocated. And I'm sorry, I have to say that I don't regard this like a set skepticism is speaking well. Sounds to me like you have you're closing your mind to alternative viewpoints. And I've tried to give you data. And if you want to disregard the problem chemical dates, that's up to you. But if I were a scientist, I'd be concerned. Cosmogenic dating, I know nothing about it. I thank you for pointing it out. And that would be worth something looking into. But if you wonder why I think the younger the earth is still young, those chemical dates are really problematic for any sort of dating. And it's challenging, radiometric dating, there's going to be a resolution of this, I hope at some point, and we'll find out the mechanisms. I've already given mechanisms that can change nuclear structure outside of nuclear decay, even starting with photonuclear processes. There's just a lot we don't know. And we're going in on assumptions. And it's okay if you want to go by the mainstream, but I've given you data points to consider. So I appreciate you telling me about that. But you can keep confronting me with how to explain this or that. I'll keep coming back and say explain the chemical dates. I'll keep coming back to the same facts. You can't just because of the volume of questions you have for me, doesn't minimize the magnitude of the problem I'm trying to present. You have this going through all the fossil layers, lots of it. It's testable. And so I think on both sides, we could put forth arguments that are problematic for both. Trying to assume that it's a done deal is probably not healthy. I've given you points. If you want to keep insisting, that's fun. But I do appreciate that PhD Tony was willing to receive Jay Kubrick's papers and writings on the Malinkovich cycle. He's very critical of it. He thinks he's falsified it. And I'm appreciative that you'd be willing to give him a fair hearing. He's not obviously respected by the current mainstream, but he certainly has achieved the academic attainment to at least, I think, be heard. And I thank you for that. So that's all I have to say. Thank you so very much, Sal. And with that, it's going to conclude our open dialogue in a second. We are going to start our Q&A round. So keep on tagging me in chat at Amy Newman, or send in those super chats to give you priority. But I am going to hand it over to the negative side to tell us your final thoughts on the subject and what you got going on. Do you take Tisha? Sure. I think that was not very productive, but okay. I'll Hagger wants me to say just Joshua for some reason. I don't know why. I'll go with that. And I'll hand it over to Tony. Okay. So again, I did point out that if you're not an expert, one of the ways you can tell junk science from real science is whether or not it has practical applications. And geochronology does have practical applications. It is used in industry. It is used in mineral exploration. It is used to get us the stuff that goes into our batteries, our cars, our planes. Our economy depends as it stands on the accuracy and reliability of geochronological techniques. So to come up and to suggest that some problem in a completely different scientific field utterly invalidates radiometric dating is faulty logic. If there's some problem with cellular dating or biological dating, that's their problem. That's not a problem with geochronology because geochronology demonstrably works. It helps us locate mineral bearing deposits and it does it every single day. It is the basis on which the modern economy works. Okay. I'm not overstating it. Our economic reality is dependent on the accuracy of geochronology. So I find none of the counter arguments to be accurate or to have any weight whatsoever. I don't think that any evidence was presented here that would cast dispersions on the geochronological techniques, nor the fact that they are all intercomparable. They can be intercompared and found to back one another up. Anyway, that's the end of my rant. Thank you so very much, the negative side. And I'm going to hand it over to the affirmative. What are your final thoughts and what you got going on? I thought that's what we just did. So I'll be honest, that was supposed to be the wrap up on the dialogue. But if you want, if that was your final thought on the topic, then Sal and Christopher, what do you have going on in the interwebs? And if not, we'll just move on to the Q&A. No, I have something to say. I just pointed out, right when I pointed out a professional geologist who's a Young Earth creationist was Tim Clary. He's obviously been in industry, he worked for Chevron Corporation. He was a professor in a secular school for 17 years. So obviously, you can take some of the same data under a Young Earth interpretation and still use it to do all digging. And you can't peer review it. You can't get it past peer review. So what he thinks, an individual, you know, you keep on going about if the data actually supported your position, why there are no atheists Young Earth creationists, but why they're Christian geocrannologists who don't, but who aren't Young Earth creationists. If your argument is correct, then all Christian geocrannologists should be Young Earth creationists. And I can tell you that that isn't the case, right? If your argument is true, and there's only one interpretation of the evidence, then all Christians who are geocrannologists or geologists should be Young Earth creationists, and they're not. That's simply the truth. Yes, sir. Was it my time to talk or was it yours? Are you going to interrupt me? I was pointing out, Tim Clary was a professional geologist. You're saying that it depended on this Old Earth interpretation. Why was he successful when he didn't believe it or accept it? So, I mean, it'd be worth having a conversation with him, what he was being able to be affected. So I think your whole kind of economy depended on it. Careful of asking questions, because that necessitates and give him over to an answer. So I will, I'm going to focus the laser. That was a rhetorical question. I'll try to follow your aim. Okay, so I would just say then, rather than use rhetorical questions, I'll just make assertions. I think that falsified your premise that it's absolutely useful. You can actually approach it from a different perspective and also get results. That means it's not really as dependent. The economy is not quite as dependent on this Old Earth view as you claim. That's proof positive of someone who succeeded and there are other geologists that are like Tim Clary. So that is a counter example. Okay. Thank you so very much, Sal. And then, Christopher, just want to ask the same question. Can we find you anywhere out there anywhere on the interwebs? And you just, Christopher, Sylvia, you can find me on YouTube and then I have a group on Facebook. It's called Young Earth Creation. I'm also on Instagram, Twitter, and yeah. It's a pleasure to be here. All right. With that, we are going to move into our Q&A section. This is your chance to send in your questions to any or all of our debaters. Super chats will get your questions sent to the front of the line. However, we will try to get as many in about the 35 minutes by sending your chat at Amy Newman. Though I do want to thank our interlocutors, Ph.D. Tony, T. Jump, Christopher, and Sal, and to remind you that all of their channel links are in the description below. If you enjoy the show, please don't forget to like and subscribe. Plus, if you're looking for even more fun after the show, come find us for aftershows and more at the MDD Discord. But with that, let the fun begin a 499 Super Chat from Nate the Lawyer. Shout out to T. Jump, the debate king. Oh, got a fan out there. Yeah, thanks. Nate is awesome. Nate has an awesome YouTube channel. Check it out. It's much bigger than mine. It's bigger than modern-day debate. He really took off. He's doing great. Well, he's in fact sending in another one we are sending so much in today for another five bucks. Ph.D. Tony is too. Long time no see. Oh my. Hi, Nate the Lawyer. Thought you'd forgotten about me. Uh, a member for seven months sending in their extra juicy saying MDD, I'm gonna try and hang around, but we'll be tough. Eddie just sent in so much love. Another fantastic podcast, the brute facts podcast. Uh, and we're moving along $5 Super Chat from bitter truth to believers. Do you think I'm gonna assume the creator who created the universe doesn't know the autonomy which is clearly telling us it's human made? I'm sorry I don't quite understand the question. Thank you for the Super Chat and the question. And let me try one more time. Two believers, do you think creator who create this universe doesn't know the anatomy which is clearly telling us it's human made? Yes, he needs referring to some problem in the Bible with human anatomy. I'm sorry. I think that he's saying that there's a seems to be mistakes in the anatomy of the human body and therefore there is no creator. That is a faulty logic because you're just you're saying because I don't understand something therefore, you know, it wasn't even made, you know, it could be that there were problems introduced to a perfect creation, like a global flood, you know, that kind of mess things up, shortened our lifespan a lot. So just because you see problems with something, you know, if something went wrong with a perfect design, you know, it's like, that doesn't matter. That doesn't disprove that somebody designed it. That's a big logical foul. So I don't know the name of it, but certainly I did want to ask Sal. Javier was wondering if the professional creationist geologists who you said worked for like a company or something, were they using like 6000 year old measurements to find oil or the 6000 year old earth model to find oil, something like that? I don't know. Okay, the conversations. No, that's a very good question. First of all, I think that he's obviously aware of the mainstream viewpoint and he can use it, but he says it doesn't mean that the viewpoint is necessarily correct. So there are ways that you can locate things, how it actually got there, it could be different, but as long as it had the certain characteristics that he needed, that's really all that mattered for searching petroleum. So you don't have to assume that it's old. You just have to assume that when you have certain conditions, it's going to help you find oil. It doesn't matter what happened in the past, what you're doing, what you're detecting are the materials in the present. But it doesn't matter how it got there, because what you're exploring oil, you're exploring it in the present. You're throwing a model on there of how it may have evolved in the past. The fundamental thing is you have the criteria for determining where to find it based on what's physically there in the present, how it got there in the past, may not be all that relevant. Sorry, I thought you'll finish down. My apologies. I'm a little slow talker. That's not your fault. So to answer Javier's question, I think he could have just as well gone one way or the other, even despite his personal belief. I don't think that he actually used the, as far as I know, he never mentioned that he used one model or the other. It was mostly, as I said, using what is in the present and what works. Go ahead. So if I may, this is a fundamental dichotomy. So what your young earth creationist geologist friend is basically saying is all the evidence is consistent with an old earth. But I believe the earth was made 6,000 years ago. So I believe the earth was made 6,000 years ago, but I believe the observational evidence indicates that it's older. And that is a perfectly valid religious position. That is a perfectly valid religious position to adopt. That is the one instance of young earth creationism that I will accept. But as soon as you come out and you say the physical evidence suggests that the earth is 6,000 years old and no more, you're wrong. You are just incorrect and you are misleading people by publicly claiming that. You can say the earth is 6,000 years old. It just looks older. Everything just looks older than that. That's fine. Go for it. And I wish you every happiness in your religion. This isn't an atheist versus theist debate. I'm not saying that you have no right to believe that. What you don't have a right to do is misinterpret the observational evidence, which the radiometric dating forms a part of. Thank you, PhD Tony. And Salah Christopher, the comment was for you guys. So a quick ending, if you want. So it's like we don't have the right to misinterpret something. Like then you don't have the right to do science because you're going to misinterpret things when you do science. So that's crazy. No, what I'm saying is that you don't have a right to educate people in something that is demonstrably false. If I educate somebody and I turn out to be wrong, then it is my responsibility to say so and to make up for it. And that is indeed how science works. People who make mistakes have to admit their mistakes and they have to concede them. Well, they don't have to, but the rest of science will move on without them if they don't. But you have made it clear you are not an expert in any of the technical fields under discussion, but you feel free to try and discredit observational evidence that you have no understanding of or ability to interpret instantly. I hope that is the ending because I will say questions necessitate going back and forth. So we are going to move forward, sending love. Can I? Yes, technically you technically have your final, but I warn you, Sal, if you ask a question, it means giving the ball back. Thank you for that pointer and I may make a mistake. I feel that Tony was putting words in Tim Clary's mouth and I respect that sometimes you have to interpolate, so do I. The way to settle this is to have an interview with Tim Clary and we could talk about his views and how he deals with it. I will say that he feels the evidence does refute an old earth. He deals with all sorts of things in geology and he has criticized some of the mainstream models. So one way to settle that is I will try to get conversations with him to talk about what you've said and I think it'd be great if he could come forward and say, you know, how do you, you know, did you really need the old earth geochronology? Did you actually have to accept that it's what the theory says and I would be interested and so that's fair. So I wouldn't be too quick to say he's totally ignoring the data and the conclusions. The man needs to speak for himself and if I misrepresent it on me and I'd like to resolve that. So if anything has come out of this debate, you'd be having a conversation with Tim Clary and I'll point out a geologist that taught at my secular school, my alma mater, George Mason, and it's he's appearing on modern day debate. He is a geologist. He's a young earth creationist and that's Professor David McQueen. So thank you very much. Absolutely. And a $2 super chat from Shelly's. If dinos come from monkeys, then why still humans? I think that's a, I think that's a flippant comment. All right. And we are moving forward, but thank you so much for the support. Shelly's and from Jamie Russell. What is up? A $2 super chat says Cordova Silvius 2024. Got a fan out there. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I'll be there. I'll be awesome. I'm up for it. We have $2 super chat from a brute facts podcast. This super chat is for T jump. Once again, another fan out there. $5 super chat from bitter truth. Create plant. I think it's planet create planet on third day. Create sun on fourth day. Planet without sun. Don't you think this is error? Let me try and read it without me helping. Create plant on third day. Create sun on fourth day. Plant without sun. Don't you think this is error? I'm not sure if they meant to say planet or they really meant plant. No, I don't think that T jump or pH don't are theistic evolutionists or atheists. I don't know if this relates to this, but you can go ahead. So sorry. No, I think this is one reason that people believe the Bible think the interpretation should be literal because if it's millions, if the days represent millions of years and then the sun were created after the plants, the plants would be dead. So it had to be closer to a 24, if not literally 24 hour timeframe. And so pointing that out is actually that could actually be a young earth or trying to give an interpretation that it has if the sun came a day after the plants were made, that means this is a 24 hour day, not not day age. So I'm going to have to fill in for Christopher for a little bit. He has to take care of his little one. So that's fine. Thank you for the thank you for the super chat. Thank you so very much for the super chat and the support. Better truth. Another five dollar super chat or I see from Tasha J. Thomas. Oh, I think she froze. Oh, did I freeze? Yeah, you froze. We were here at $5 and then you stopped. Dun dun dun. Can you okay my back? Yes. Yes. Cool, cool. Dun dun dun. A five dollar super chat from Tasha J. Thomas. Thank you so very much. The earth is both old and young and we have the proof for the global flood for more info respond to the name. Oh my. Okay, so again, speaking of somebody who has studied in paleo sea level change, there is absolutely no scientific data at all in support of a global flood that has any scintillar of respectability to it. It just didn't happen. It can't happen. It's a physical impossibility on multiple levels. And I really, you know, the number of holes with it from the amount of latent heat that would be necessary, where did the water come from, where did the water go? How can you have ice sheets existing while there's water? The water will, ice floats on water. You're not going to have ice in contact with the ground. What were the koalas eating while they were on this, while they were on this arc for, you know, a year and a bit? You know, because it certainly wasn't eucalyptus leaves, because eucalyptus don't live in the Middle East. So they weren't available to be put on there. What did the, what did the koalas eat on their way out from the Middle East to Australia? How did they get across the Wallace Line? All of these questions, it's, it's, it's, it's childish to assert that the, that these bedtime stories are real. There's not a scintiller of evidence. And I cannot believe the willingness of professional scientists to sacrifice every ounce of their scientific integrity in pursuit of what are obviously fables. So, Sal said, yes, absolutely. Um, I would like to ask Tony a question. Does he believe in evolutionary theory? Yes, I do, but it's not my academic specialty. To me, you're believing in fables. And so your incredulity toward us, I feel the same toward you. It's, to me, it's one of the dumbest theories in feeling. Your qualifications in evolutionary biology are? I'm not an evolutionary biologist for starts. Okay. Then your opinion means nothing, doesn't it? So we can go back to the discussion. Let's count for something, because an evolutionary biologist said, Jerry coin in science is pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom far closer to the pseudoscience of phrenology than to physics. Um, again, I don't care what he said if he didn't say it in a peer reviewed article. All right. So thank you that, uh, well, anyway, thank you. I do appreciate you responding to my question that you believe in fairy tales too. I believe in what you consider to be fairy tales. You believe in something for which there is not a scintiller of evidence. There's a difference. And moving forward, thank you so very much, uh, Tossajay, but a $2 super chat from Travis all does teenage hallucinin beat peer review? Let me say that again. Does teenage hallucination hallucinogen beat peer review? That's more of like a personal attack on Sal, I think. So then I'll send it over to Sal. Seems like it's getting spicy. Uh, I didn't understand the chat. So thank you for the money. We're sending so much love Travis. And if you would like, uh, tag me if it was not clear enough and I will resend the chat, but thank you so very much for the support Travis. Well, I think it was in reference to Sal has told, I think people that he had an experience of Jesus when he was a teenager or something and that's saying it was like a hallucination and that needs to be peer reviewed or something. I would like to say that I, sorry, Sal, I just want to say I think that it's unfair, um, to attack somebody's religious experience, um, uh, as a hallucination. Um, I think that that's, uh, that's a bit raw, right? We were, you know, and um, this is why I think that setting this up as atheism versus theism, there are plenty of Christians who, you know, believe the evidence for an old earth being a Christian is not a hallucination. And I think that it's sort of, um, it's, it's poisoning the world to characterize it that way. Sorry, Sal, I shouldn't have cut you off. No, thank you. Much appreciated what you just said, sir. Thank you. Thank you so very much. Also, Sal, this will seem random. Is it frozen on your end? If not, I see everyone fine. You see everyone fine? All right. You can hear me. It could be that because Christopher Sylvia's dropped out. That may be. All right. Well, we're sending love because we can hear you just fine. What I'm going to do is tee up another $5 super chat from Bitter Truth at the first God made heaven and the earth. Well, there was no earth in the beginning of the universe creation. This is, of course, scientific error. Was that directed at someone? I believe that's directed at you. Okay. And I'm sorry if you could repeat. And first off, you said that at the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, but scientifically there was no earth at the Big Bang Earth hadn't formed yet. Therefore, it's a scientific error. The Big Bang. Well, thank you for that. The Big Bang is getting in more and more trouble. Even at my undergraduate alma mater, there were three professors openly critical of the Big Bang. And this was even in like the 90s or early 2000s, like Minas Cafatos, Sister Roy. And so there are theories that could be postulated that don't agree with the Big Bang. And even in the last three years, there's questions about the mechanism of the redshift. There was the Pioneer Six radio waves that were examined, reexamined, I'm sorry. And as they passed through the solar corona, they got redshifted. If that's the case, then we can't absolutely rule out that the redshifts could have another mechanism than universal expansion. There's also data by Hawkins and others that question that. So I think we can't accept the Big Bang as true. It also requires something like, okay, I'm going to restart my video. It requires things like inflation. Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose has come out very critical of inflation and this is causing problems. So I wouldn't, you know, I believe in instantaneous creation that seems to be more reasonable because I have this book and I'm still frozen solar system evolution. It was written by someone fighting against creationism after I read it. I believe the solar system was created because of all the problems of contradiction. They couldn't resolve the theory and to me it seemed like it was more reasonable that the earth and the solar system were instantaneously created. Thank you so very much, Sal. And I think it's just me. I think I would have to restart Zoom, but I can't do that live. So I apologize for that, everyone. We're going to keep on moving with some fantastic audio and super chats. Shout out to Restream. Restream, you can actually do that. I can restart my computer and rejoin Restream and the other person is hosting just fine. Oh, really? Maybe I need to look into Restream. But Sending Love from Duffreak. Shout out to James. Sending love to our very own modern day debate, James, out there somewhere on the interwebs. So much love and thank you so much Duffreak. Sending love, I really only have two favorite names that I like to say on the internet, and that is Titan Uranus and Stupid Whore Energy, who sends in a $10 super chat. In Yellowstone Park, there is a stratigraphic section of 2,000 feet exposed, which shows 18 petrified forests in secession. This seems like it would have taken longer than a flood year. It may well have. What's the time frame? Oh, well, first off, thank you for the question. And who was it from? It was our very own Stupid Whore Energy. Well, Ms. Energy, nice to hear from you. So you're saying that it looks like 18 petrified fossil forests in secession. That would mean once on top of the other. And you're saying that that would take longer than one year to form. That seems reasonable. But we should try to determine the chemical ages across those. I don't know if the petrified forest would still have any of the original wood, but if it does, and you're able to see it across the strata, that will tell you that some of these, depending on the chemical dates used, it'll constrain how long that those forests were put in secession. Thank you so very much, Stupid Whore Energy. And a $5 Super Chat again from Bitter Truth. Can I get into this show and ask believers directly? Well, not quite, but what you can do is find our about page on the Modern Day Debate YouTube and send an email with any type of qualifications or anything it got going on. And maybe we'll get you set up for some fun. But thank you so much for the support, Bitter Truth. And all right, we're going to get in some questions, but this is the last 10 minutes. So if you really want yours to be read, make sure you send in those Super Chats. Sending love to Nicky, who tells me to eat some cookies. Sending so much love, Nicky. Delania at tagging me saying, Christians have said that evidence that the earth is over 6,000 years old was created by God to test your faith. Do they believe evidence against their belief? That's a very good question. So the example I use is that if you have a pencil that's straight and you put it in water, it looks bent. Does that mean God is testing your faith? I'd say no, because you have the means to find out. Do further investigations that the pencil is indeed straight. Even more powerfully was the problem of geocentrism, where it was presumed that the entire universe would fall around the earth. And that was superficially reasonable, because we saw the sun rise and set every day. And we could also claim there that God was deceiving us and testing our faith. But it turned out if you're willing to look at the anomalies, like retrograde motion, you'd realize that, and as Copernicus was able to deduce, that the solar system is heliocentric and the universe is not geocentric. So this thing of supposed evidence, they are data points. It doesn't mean that it's proof. Just like you have data points that the pencil looks bent. It doesn't mean that it's actually bent. You have the opportunity then to see through further investigation what is the truth. And so I wouldn't say it's testing your faith thereby. It's testing your willingness to find out if there are alternative viewpoints. And it does test where your heart is, because if you love God and it's tied to your view that the earth might be young and there are Christians that believe that's old. But for some, I was an old earth creationist, but for some it's important to them and it's going to motivate them to investigate further. And maybe the evidence like that bent pencil or with geocentrism on further investigation, you'll realize that it's a different answer and it was only superficially looking one way, when in fact it was the other. And as you get that new data, it will be convincing the other viewpoint and that is a testable. That's more of a qualitative prediction for young earth creationism. I think the data will eventually be vindicating that viewpoint. I've given some of the anomalies that I stated, such as the chemical dates. And a testable prediction is also the decay of the magnetic field. I may not be around to see that prediction come true. This would be not just the magnetic field of the earth, but also the other planets in the solar system. Thank you so very much. Another super chat from the fabulous stupid whore energy, $10. But you see the problem, right Sal? Each forest shows mature trees before being wiped out with lava. And the lava had to become soil before the next forest could grow. Oh my stupid whore back for more. Thank you for the super chat. She feels like one of my fans. I think that was an excellent point. Miss energy. And I don't have a comeback to that except testing the dates. I would presume for one, if we do find carbon dates, and we know that the carbon dates cannot be like larger than like say 40 50,000 years, if we find those there, then there has to be another explanation for the succession. And also for the chemical dates, we just have to look at it. So, you know, those are data points that would constrain maybe their formation. So maybe they weren't actual growth cycles of separate forests. We don't know. But I think you made an excellent point. I'd like to respond to something that Sal just said. Absolutely. But then he'll have the last word after but the floor is all yours. Is is Sal aware that carbon 14 can be detected in old samples for two reasons? Well, three, three main reasons. One failure to properly clean your sample to machine error where C 13 H and C 12 H two makes it past the final gate in a mass spectrometer and gets detected as having a massive 14 atomic mass units. And three, if the sample is near a radioactive source that is emitting neutrons that can lead to carbon 14 production in the sample. So is he aware that just because you find the carbon 14 in a sample doesn't mean that it's young? I am aware of that. I will be having a nuclear engineer on my channel who shares Tony's views to examine that even in more detail. And I am aware of those problems. And, you know, I think that's a legitimate objection. I'm not saying that we've actually found it in those trees. I'm just suggesting that those would be worth investigating. It would be interesting to see whatever, you know, chemical mechanism we can look at if we can if it's even accessible to find out through the stratified trees. If it starts to return young, you know, younger dates that is problematic, we have to reexamine then how those come up with a different set of mechanisms of how we could get that successive petrified forest. I mean, that that was I have to credit miss energy. That was a very good objection to my models. So thank you. Thank you so very much, stupid horror energy. And another question or some love coming in from Mr. E man $5. Why does science have a consensus and religion does not have a consensus? Well, I'd like to I'll address that. And this comes back to the point that I was making earlier. If the state of the evidence was as Sal and Christopher maintain, then all Christian scientists or Christians who are professional scientists would come to the same conclusion as Sal and Christopher. They don't because that is actually not the state of the evidence. No, that's actually not why it's because they they're bias and they're controlled, you know, that's a couple of reasons, but definitely not the evidence. I will. Okay. So I mentioned this earlier, but when you come up and you start lying about other people, you are breaking your own religious injunctions. Kindly do not do it. You were lying about me by saying what you just said. So I didn't even mention you in what I was saying. So how did I lie about you? Well, my company me and Sal here about how we what you just said. But what lie did I say? Well, God, help me out here, Sal, because I can't remember what you just said. My brain is not functional right now. Well, in a second, I'm going to help both of you guys out and go on to the next question. Unless Sal, do you want to say something? Yes, I did want to say something relevant to the the question that was posed. There are many different religions because of the uncertainty. People tend to fill in the ideas with faith. Whereas for operational science, like say electromagnetic theory, geometric optics, there's consensus because you have repeatable experiments. So I'm perfectly fine with, you know, calling that first rate science. Whenever you can repeat it and predict it and control it, such as the case with applied physics, also known as engineering, or any applied chemistry with respect to the origins and why Christians disagree. And I disagree with a body of Christians. And I consider them brothers in Christ about the age of the earth. Those are not subject to the same same accessibility as experiments we can run in the present day and we can actually agree on what the outcome was. We're speculating on the past. And therefore, I think we would call origins for historical science, if you would even call it science, is of lower quality. You're going to have a lot more disagreement. Thank you, Sal. And we only got five more minutes. So if you want to make sure your burning desire question is asked, make sure to send in those super chats. But we're sending love another $5 super chat. So much love from bitter truth science based on evidence, but religion based on belief. Also, religions representing incorrect science, how someone can be convinced by religion myth. Both are religious. Neither one is technically scientific. Science is not scientific, it's genius. I would modify that. You know, we're conflating origins theories that use some science versus operational theories which you can test in the present day. They are not equivalent in level of verifiability and confidence. So, you know, I don't know what we're going to do with that. I do want to just mention David McQueen's coming on modern day debate. He is a professor of geology at my school. He's a young earth creationist. He taught at a secular university. I'd be interested to hear how he had succeeded in that being a young earth creationist. So, I mean, they're young earth creationists who seem to be able to do geology quite well without having to accept origin theories that can't be directly verified anyway. So, anyway, thank you for the point. Yeah, but what verification do you have that the biblical account of creation is correct? Where's your evidence? What about, like, I would have testimonies that come from most ancient cultures all around the world that all talk about how a flood happened. What about those people? So, that would be explained by large-scale sea level rise following the last glacial cycle. I have one way to look at it. Sea level rise by 120 meters between 18,000 and 9,000 years ago. This displaced pretty much every coastal dwelling population on the face of the planet and they remembered it. It's not that hard to explain. Well, neither is a lot of your arguments that you're saying that we don't have an explanation for. It's not like they're hard to explain. You know, it's just like, you think because you have all these arguments, you're somehow right automatically. Yes, yes. Well, you haven't come up with a single valid argument against cosmogenic exposure. The fact that erosion rates don't match up with the ice core data. The fact that the dust content through the ice cores is constant in magnitude. The magnitude and frequency of isotopic changes within the ocean. You haven't explained any of that, what you've thrown out. I did. We actually went through like a whole thing. No, you didn't. You strung some words together and you pretended to yourself that it made sense. That is literally what you did. Now you're lying about it. See how you're doing that? No, I am accurately describing what you did. You didn't. You did not. You did not present a hypothesis that was quantifiable, that was testable, that had any basis in physical reliability. Absolutely did. So, I don't know what you're talking about. No, you did. You should even have a PhD. And just send in love everyone out there or keep it a classy because we only got three more questions and then we are getting out to the after show on the discord sending so much love from Delaney. Old Hebrew, Old Testament, home means day, but also can mean unknown period of light, point of time, sunrise to sunset, a year, a long but finite span of time, age, epoch, season. I think, thank you for the comment. I think that's trying to point out that there's not only one interpretation of the Bible that's out there and one can therefore use that ambiguity to suggest that they would call something other than the younger's creationism. So, thank you. And a follow-up from Delaney. Does Sal believe the King James Bible is an accurate translation? No. That's still be a stab. We can disagree there. Yeah, I think it's better than others like the the Living Bible. I think that's like one of the worst of them. So, I take the King James over the Living Bible. I take translations that aren't KJV and burn them once a year. So, maybe you should think about that. But just for the record, I listen to the King James almost every day. But I think there are some parts it's, you know, it is inaccurate, but I trust it more than others and I listen to it all the time. Most of my Bible study has been in King James. From the Mystery Cook, So Noah's flood covered the 7,000 meter high Mount Everest. There isn't enough water in the water to go 100 meters up Mount Everest. Oh, Everest didn't exist then. Makes sense. Checks out not. The suggestion, you know, I think that's reasonable. What would have to happen is the mountains would have had to risen. Very quickly and very high. So the waters could cover the earth. And then later the mountains rose through violent tectonic ability. Violent tectonic activity. And, you know, I do see like Sullivan Mountain that looks, you have all these folded rocks. And, you know, to me that looks like that happened quickly. And at the time that it was still unlythied. So it's possible. So that would be the resolution that at least the creationist community would suggest is the mountains rose very quickly afterward after the flood had covered the earth. Well, he's conceding that and he's like, oh, we'll check. It doesn't make any sense, blah, blah, blah. But he doesn't realize that there are actually clams on Mount Everest. They're in the close positions indicating that they were buried rapidly. And also whales on the top of mountains indicating they were buried rapidly. A global flood. That's right. I know it gives you a headache because of the trite and you're wrong. That's why. Okay. So now you're just spewing nonsense. And perhaps you should be silent while the adults talk to address sales point. There is no evidence that this is rapid. And your interpretation of what it looks like is literally meaningless because you have zero qualifications in assessing this. The existence of these fossils at elevations is easily explained by the amount of observed uplift that is ongoing as far as tectonic processes are concerned. And we can again correlate the modern rate of spreading with the ancient ages and the radiometrically determined ages of collisions and tectonic events like the collision of India with the Eurasian plates that created the Himalayas. And you'll claim that there were no mountains. The great dividing range along the east coast of Australia used to be huge. But it is so old that most of it is eroded away. Claim that there weren't any mountains is wrong. It's just observably nonsense. Literally you guys have no idea of the amount of evidence globally that disputes simple statements that you just made. This claim that all mountains have been formed recently. Obviously not. The great dividing range has had the crap eroded out of it. So you don't get round the basic problems with your scenario by just saying, well, the mountains came up recently. No, we can prove that that didn't happen. We can prove that it's wrong. And we can prove that there were mountains before those mountains. Can you not, and this is a rhetorical question, can you not at least once concede that you don't know what you're talking about? Because every time something is brought up, you've got some sea-to-the-pants half-baked explanation that has absolutely no factual basis to it. And so there was two questions in there. We're going to let both of you answer, but then we are going to fly this plane into the end game. I mean, since that question was directed at us, do we get the final word on that one? Not only that, but I do believe that Tony was asking you guys a question. So I just told you one evidence of it, and I talked about the, it looks like there's a bend like in the Sullivan mountain. It looks like to you, that's not evidence of anything. It is bent. It's plenty of evidence. Plenty of evidence. So I mean, just, you know. If I say you look like a potato to me, does that, is that evidence that you're a potato? I gave evidence that the mountains, you know, you gave evidence. That's fine. We gave evidence and you're just saying we're unqualified. That's all right. So this has not happened before to me where I've seen. Oh, go on, Amy. Thank you. Oh, no, no, no. What I'll say actually, Sal, you're going to be the, so finish your thought and then. Now it's, you know, we're getting beat down and saying, we're not qualified for this or that. I will tell you I was not qualified in biology eight years ago, but I smelled that there was a skunk in evolutionary biology and a biogenesis. It's just been rewarding to see that I was right because even the evolutionary biologists and the a biogenesis researchers, they're having a meltdown. Scientists are saying some of that stuff is just absolutely junk. And I saw it coming. I'm glad I didn't waste my time on garbage science. And so one does not have to be wasting years in a dead end idea to necessarily refute it. So, you know, this whole thing of being unqualified, it's like, okay, you can believe that. Thank you so very much, Sal. This is the last regular question and a super chat snuck in, but sending love out there to Defreak. I saw you send in love to me and us, send in love that love right back. But Dessledrace, Tony, what do you make of Cadoa, Christian Totten and Caddling arguing for very low CO2 during the Hayden because of the impact eject, it says ejecta, eject or eject eject a weathering from meteors, re faint young son? I haven't read that paper, but even if you accept the CO2 levels being low, you do have other atmospheric effects that can lead to, that can lead to warming. For instance, you can have low clouds forming as a result of that. That will also have a greenhouse effect. Sorry, I think it's high clouds. If you've got high clouds, you can get a greenhouse effect trapping heat near Earth's surface. So while there is still some scientific discussion to be had about exactly what was going on in the early atmosphere, the claim that it is a demonstration that the Earth cannot be more than 6,000 years old is demonstrably false. I haven't read that paper, but I will look into it. Thank you for recommending it. Also, Bitter, I see you getting in one more Super Chat, but this is my warning. This will be, these two are the last Super Chat. So even if you send in a Super Chat, I don't think we are going to get in because we want to respect our debaters time, but we appreciate all of the love. A $2 from Mark Reid. Christopher, so you would burn books? Yeah, man, I don't know what's wrong with burning books. The reason I burn false translations, because I believe that they're a corruption of God's Word, which qualifies you from going to heaven. Which biblical manuscripts would you burn? I'd like to know that one. Which any of them isn't a KJV. So you would burn the original documents? No, because that's what the KJV is translated from. I'm not going to take the ancient manuscripts, which we construct the Bible with and burn them. If you're burning all versions of the Bible apart from the KJV, that means you're burning all non-English versions of the Bible. The KJV. That's not what I said. You want to do that? That's fine. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. You said you were going to burn all non-KJV versions of the Bible. I'm clearly talking about translations that have came out recently that haven't been in Christian history since the 1600s and beyond. Going back to the early Christians, these modern translations like the NIV, the ESV, the amplified version, which I found too loud, but there are all these crazy translations that are coming out now and they are not accurate. I think they're corruption. So no, I would not burn the early manuscripts. That's if I wasn't clear on that, now I am. Okay. She's talking about modern translations. I think they're false. Okay, but just to be clear, just a simple yes or no question. You guys believe in magic, right? Because the Bible says magic is real. Magic? Yes. Most of Zenni's brother Aaron have a magic contest against the Pharaoh's sorcerers and they win, not because the Pharaoh's sorcerers can't do magic, but because they do better magic. And their magical serpent eats all the other magical serpents. That's in the book of Exodus. So Moses' brother does better magic than the Pharaoh's sorcerers. So you guys believe in magic. Also the witch of Endor, she uses magic to raise the cells of the dead. So that she can... Well, it's in the Bible. So why don't you believe in it? We, because what Moses and Aaron was doing was not magic. It was the power of God. They weren't using magic to raise the cells. But the sorcerers weren't using the power of God. They were doing magic. Right. And on that note, this is the last question. Bitter truth for $10. And thank you to all of the love and supports from our super chats tonight. And just regular questions. Quick question. If science is garbage, why do you need to see a physician? I feel like this tack on creationists, because we don't believe in science. We believe in magic. That's what they're trying to say here. That's just dumb though. Christians have been doing science since before atheists were doing science. Been doing it just fine for a long time. Stop. Atheists existed before Christians, bro. It's a serious question. Do you deny that the book of Exodus describes a magic duel between Moses and Aaron and the sorcerers and the pharaoh's sorcerers? Yes, I deny that. I deny that. It's not magic. No, no, no. Do you deny that that incident is described in the Bible? That story you're talking about is a battle of magicians, sorcerers versus men of God, which are not doing nothing of their own power. But they were leaving aside what Moses and Aaron were doing. What were the sorcerers doing? Magic. Okay. So you do believe in magic? Okay, yeah. In that sense, yeah. I do believe magic is possible, certainly. Okay. And then so you can't really say that we're defaming you by saying you believe in magic. All right, but I don't want to do magic. That's all I'm saying. I'm not pro-magic. I'm not for magic. Well, I'm glad we sorted that out before it developed into a controversy. What about you, Sal? Do you believe that magic is described in the Old Testament? Yes. I'm sorry. I was delayed in responding. I actually had to think about it. And on that note, I want to send love to all of us out there. I saw Bread of Life actually sneaking in a super chat to send love to Sal. So, Sal, you got a fan out there. But we all want to thank you for joining us here on Modern Day Debates. We're a neutral platform welcoming everybody from all walks of life. Please don't forget to like and subscribe. And if you want looking for more juicy debates, including is the Earth 6,000 years old, and you liked what either of our interlocutors had to say, like Ph.D. Tony, T-Jump, Christopher, and Sal. Well, you can find all of their links in the description below. Plus, if you're looking for more fun after the show, why not head over to the MDD Discord. But with that, I am Amy Newman with Modern Day Debate. We hope and you continue to have more great conversations, discussions, and debates. Good night. Good day.