 Hi everybody. Tonight we're debating whether or not dinosaurs live with man and we're starting right now. With Nephilim Fri's opening statement, arguing the affirmative Nephilim Fri, the floor is all yours. Thank you. So to refute the evidence that dinosaurs coexist in man, my opponent must provide empirical evidence that there's a gap in time between dinosaurs and men. This evidence must be testable, else he would be appealing to an idea, not testable evidence, or show that mankind's historical depictions and legends of dinosaurs or other creatures and not dinosaurs, and show that the fossil footprints of dinosaurs and humans in the same geological strata are not dinosaurs or not humans or both. My opponent will be unable to accomplish these. So this is what the 19th century scientists believed the guanodon looked like on the left. And today with modern science we know that that's what, on the right, is what a guanodon actually looked like. So what I'm pointing to is the idea. Just to let you know that we can't see your screen if you're sharing something. Oh, oh, okay, shoot. So if you go down to that green button on the bottom of the window, that'll usually kick it into gear. Okay, there we go. There we go. Okay. Okay, so on the left you see a 19th century depiction according to the best science of what a guanodon looked like, 20th century depiction on the right based on modern science. The reason I'm showing you this is because to dispel the idea that ancient people could have looked at dinosaurs fossils and then depicted correctly known what dinosaurs look like. The reason I'm telling you that is because ancient man depicted accurately real dinosaurs. They didn't even do it like the 19th century scientists did. They did it far better than that. And that means they had to have seen the creatures, not seen the fossils in the dirt. See here's a 19th century depiction of Megalosaurus and on the 20th century technology, we know what it looked like on the right. Megalosaurus, here's another. This is an ancient depiction of a dinosaur. We see the crest under the neck or has a waddle, okay. Ancient man couldn't have known that, but he had seen it, that soft tissue. It's never been preserved in a fossil. But modern scientists predict because of the other features of the dinosaur, it likely had a waddle, even though the fossil doesn't show that, but yet ancient man depicted waddles. This is a depiction of a, this depiction of an Edmontosaurus standing upright in a threatening position. Now the reason the ancient men were able to depict this creature is because they had actually seen it. They probably walked upon the creature. It stood upon its back legs to impress the men that, hey, I'm big and bad. You don't want to mess with me like a black bear does when it's threatened. And they couldn't have known that unless they'd seen the creature with their own eyes. Here's an ancient Chinese depiction of the protoceratops. It looks remarkably like a real protoceratops. This one as well, Sola Ruffus, Sora Luffus, has the crest, has the textured skin, only discovered in the, you know, 2010s. The dinosaurs had a patterned skin and the crest. This is from Ontario, Canada. This is from Israel, a dinosaur is attacking a horse, biting it at the base of its neck, causing it to go down to its front knees because the pain is intense. He's disabling the animal. Another dinosaur on looks and says, hey, I want to bite at that. Looks really good. What animal is that size that can bite a horse at the base of its neck and don't real animals bite animals at vulnerable points like in the throat, the base of the neck. This animal is doing that. That's a dinosaur. This is a temple built in Cambodia, about 1100 AD. It has a stegosaurus on its side. These are two sauropod dinosaurs with in-between neck. This is from ancient Egypt. Let's take a look at what a dinosaur might look like. Here's a cartoon of a dinosaur. Would anybody look at this and say, oh, that's not a dinosaur. Even a three-year-old would say, yeah, look at the cartoon of the dinosaur. Well, look at this. Now let's superimpose that cartoon of a dinosaur on a rock. It still looks like a dinosaur. Now let's take away the superimposition and leave with the ancient Native Americans' truth. It's a sauropod dinosaur. See, here's the cartoon. We know it's a sauropod dinosaur. Here's a sauropod dinosaur imposed on the rock. Still a sauropod dinosaur. Let's take away the superimposition and we still have a sauropod dinosaur. Evolutionists deny this is actually a sauropod dinosaur carved by ancient men, but it surely is. Another ancient Babylonian depiction of sauropod dinosaurs with crested skulls. We even know what species that is. Lusotitan. Here's another Lusotitan, also from Babylonia. From ancient Greece, no, Palestine, I'm sorry. The Greek there reads crocodile wizard and there are men there. Obviously, this creature lying in the middle of a river weighs tons. Here's a medieval art. You can see the baby dinosaur on the right. We called them dragons then. Here's another one from the medieval ages. This is allegedly six million year old human footprints discovered in Crete. They say it raises problems for evolutionists. The evolutionists can't submit it because it looks like. See, they test the rock and stuff and come up with six million years old. They're obviously human footprints. The humans will. The scientists will say that this on the right on the left is a human footprint. But what you see on the right is a human footprint found in the Plexi Riverbed in Texas. In that same strata were sauropod, three, three toe dinosaur footprints crossing the human footprints in the same strata. And the evolutionists will say those are not real human footprints. Well, look at that. Is that a human footprint or what? But they'll say the one on the left is a human footprint. But they'll say the one on the right is not simply because there are three toe dinosaur footprints in the same strata as those human footprints. And that means man lived with dinosaurs. Isn't it funny? They'll admit that what you see on the right left is a human footprint. But on the right, oh, that can't be a human footprint. Why? Well, because then the same strata are three toe dinosaur footprints. And man couldn't have lived with dinosaurs. See, this is how the mind of an evolutionist works. It's called denial. This is Plexi Riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas. In the 1970s, they excavated rock layers and they found two layers of dinosaur footprints with human footprints. There they are. And these are the footprints I just showed you a photograph of this one. And they'll say they'll admit the one on the left is a human footprint, allegedly six million years old, which contradicts evolution theory, by the way. Now they're scratching their heads, but they'll say the one on the right. No, that can't be a human footprint, even though it's a far better print than the one on the left. Why? Because it's in the Plexi Riverbed and it's the same strata in which define dinosaur footprints, which they'll admit the dinosaur footprints are real dinosaur footprints. But they'll say, no, that's not a human footprint. And the one on the left is. But they'll say the one on the right is not. Why? Because it was found in Glen Rose, Texas, along with actual dinosaur footprints and no evolutionist scientist denies those are really dinosaur footprints. But they'll deny those are human footprints. Let me show you that again. I want you to understand the denial of evolutionists. The footprint on the right was found in Glen Rose, Texas, in the very same strata in which dinosaurs actually walked. That means the humans and dinosaurs walked on the same strata in the same mud, which solidified, concreted into rock. They'll say the picture on the left is a human footprint that's six million years old, which contradicts their theory and makes them scratch their heads. What's going on here? Man didn't live six million years ago. But they'll deny the one on the right, which is a real human footprint, far better impression than the one on the left, can't be a human footprint for no other reason than it was found here with dinosaur footprints that they don't deny are really dinosaur footprints. What's that tell you? That tells you somebody's paradigm is taking over their mind and they're not willing to be honest about the evidence because they're stuck believing a paradigm and can't accept the scientific modern evidence that dinosaurs coexist with man. That this is all I have for my slideshow. I could show you far more. My slideshow is not working correct because I changed a script file. But I have lots more I could show you. I'll just conclude with this. Man has depicted accurate depictions of numerous several different species of dinosaurs throughout human history. And there's legends of humans coexisting with dinosaurs. They call them dragons or whatnot in various languages around the world. This would not be true unless man actually coexisted with these monsters and actually combated them. They've had fights with them. They killed them. They ran from them. The legends go on and on and on. The evolutionist wants you to believe that these are fantastical fantasy creatures instead of real creatures that humans believed in. I mean, observed and actually encountered that they're just myths, but they can't be myths because they're global. It's irrational to believe that all the various tribes of man living in various continents would come up with the same fantastical stories that man happened to live with these beasts that happen to fit the very depictions that they put in art and rock for countless centuries going back into the past that accurately depict several different species of matter of known dinosaur accurately. The conclusion is man lived with dinosaurs and they went extinct. And during the history of mankind, that's the evidence. Now, anybody who denies this powerful evidence and I've only shown you a sliver of it is doing so not because of the evidence, but because they're driven to believe that evolution is true and deep time is true. I'll say this about deep time. Deep time, the idea that the earth is millions of years old and life squiggled up out of the mud. It came from Babylonia. It's a Babylonian myth and the ancient Greeks and Indians, Hindu got it from the Babylonians. And this is an ancient myth that rock that the mud produces flies and frogs and stuff and life sponsored. You know, life is a product. Ancient Greeks said life is a product of earth, wind and fire. The three of them produce organisms. This is a by a biogenesis. Today they call the same idea a biogenesis. There in science has an advanced at all. It's not science. It's a crazy myth that mud soup comes alive and makes dinosaurs. Anyway, the evidence that man coexisted with dinosaurs is beyond overwhelming. I've only shown you a sliver of it. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Neverland free for that opening statement. And now let me tell you folks about some up and coming juicy stuff. In particular, you'll see on the far right, you could say bottom right of your screen. If you have never been to modern day debate before, want to let you know we are a neutral channel hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And we're excited to have you here. No matter what walk of life you are from, whether you be Christian, atheist, agnostic, you name it folks. We're glad you're here and also want to let you know. And also as I introduced atheist junior want to give a huge thank you to atheist junior for jumping into today's debate. As originally you'll see on the bottom right of your screen. We've postponed it. Kent Hoven will be here talking, taking on it. Dr. Stern Cardinal. That's going to be an epic one on whether or not Noah's Ark could have worked. However, that's postponed to later this month. And so I want to say thanks so much atheist junior for stepping in last minute as tonight's debate was somewhat impromptu, but one lets you know we are pumped for that upcoming debate. And so hit that subscribe button if you haven't already and that way you don't miss out on that juicy debate coming up. So atheist junior, thanks for being with us. We're very grateful to have you. The floor is all yours. Okay. How's my audio James? It's still a little bit. I would say maybe if you could turn it up a bit. Yeah. Okay. I'll try to speak up. Is that better? It's a little better. Maybe a bit. Even moving closer to your mic can work. Yeah. How's that James? That's definitely okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. And thank you to Nephilim free for being here. Before I get into my opening statement proper, I need to get some preliminary definitions out of the way. Taxonomous group humans into the class. And using those same methods. They group dinosaurs into the class. Obes or birds. So to answer the question of have dinosaurs ever lived alongside modern humans, the answer is a rezoning. Yes. However, I get the feeling that Nephilim free does not accept the idea that birds are dinosaurs. So. I think he's thinking more T Rex, Velociraptor, Spinosaurus, and other Cretaceous theropod dinos. Basically it was in Jurassic Park. That's what he's talking about. So no, those dinosaurs have never lived alongside modern Homo sapiens sapiens. Since they died out during the Cretaceous paleo gene extinction event about 66 million years ago. When an asteroid estimated to be between six and 10 miles in diameter slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula. Okay. This impact was so violent. That it's estimated that about 20 seconds after it hit, it created an impact crater, 18 miles deep into Earth's crust. And this kicked up a ton of debris. A debris. Which around the Earth's atmosphere several kilometers per second. The KT boundary layer all around Earth. This massive dust cloud devastated both animal and plant life on Earth. Choking the air and blocking out the sun. And the reason that I mentioned all this is because this is what proves that these dinosaurs went extinct long before modern humans walked the earth. Geologists can prove that this KT layer is real. A layer of iridium that is worldwide. And it has concentrations 10 to 30 times higher than anywhere else in the geologic record of what you would expect to see. However, there is zero scientific evidence that cretaceous dinosaurs ever lived alongside modern humans. Paleontologists have never discovered bones of humans in the same layers as these dinos. As cool as that would be. We've never even seen eight fossils in the same layers. We've never seen a fresh dinosaur carcass or seen a live specimen captured that didn't turn out to be a hoax or a rotting basking shark. So the formation of geologic layers matches up to different eras of time going back into the past of our planet for millions and millions of years. This lets us study the fossilized creatures that lived on Earth in chronological order. At the top of the cretaceous layer in the geologic column, like right above it, is this distinct KT boundary. And it's not until you go five layers up to the what's called the Pliocene where we see the fossilized skulls of modern humans. All verifiable evidence from geology, paleontology, radiometric dating, chemistry, taphonomy and paleo anthropology says that dinosaurs did not live alongside humans. There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs. And there are no dinosaur fossils found with human fossils except birds, which descended from dinosaurs out of place, human traces, the plexi footprints do not withstand examination. Furthermore, there is approximately 64 million, a 64 million year gap in the fossil record where there are neither dinosaurs nor human fossils. So if humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places in the same layers. So at the very least, there shouldn't be such a static separation between them. But instead of saying my evidence is against this claim, what is the evidence creationist claim is evidence that dinosaurs did live with humans? One example that Nef mentioned is the fossilized dinosaur footprints found in Glen Rose, Texas. Now the way that the original dino prints were shaped with three large toe prints, some of them would erode to where the detail of the toes were lost and what you ended up with was what looked like a human sandal or moccasin print. And these alleged human footprints involved a number of misidentified and spurious phenomena. Most of the supposed mantracks in the riverbed are forms of elongate metatarsal dinosaur tracks made by dinosaurs at times that impressed the metatarsae as they walked. And when the digit dimensions of these tracks are subdue by mud collapse, erosion, infilling or a combination of these things, like I said, they start to superficially resemble human footprints. And when you properly have the tracks to look at, they don't look like this. And there was also multiple, it happened in the 20s and then later people producing fake human footprints in Glen Rose and selling them where you would have a plaster cast and you would have a dinosaur footprint and then on top of that you'd have a big Fred Flintstone footprint. And so these were obfics. Some of the human prints are erosional features or other natural irregularities. They don't show clear human features without selective highlighting and also they don't occur in natural striding sequences. For these to be human footprints, these people would have to be 9 or 10 feet long. The stride between the footprints, the distance is way too long for them to be human. The creationists are just looking at the actual print and seeing that it sort of resembles a human print, but when you look at the prints in succession, there's no way that a human could have done this unless he was jumping in between his steps. I'm going to skip ahead to dinosaur soft tissue. So another favorite argument is misrepresenting the research of Mary Schweitzer and presenting it as dinosaur soft tissue or even blood when this is totally inaccurate. And Schweitzer used to be a younger creationist, but working in the lab day in and day out, this led her to be unable to deny the truth of deep time and the fact that dinosaurs and humans did not live together. So she has repeatedly expressed her irritation with younger creationists who misrepresent her research and presented as something that is basically the exact opposite of what it means. So in 2003, the femur of a T-rex was sent to Mary for dissection analysis and after applying acid to remove some unimportant minerals, she observed what looked like blood cells, blood vessels and animal proteins that were degraded but looked similar to what would be found in fragile bones. So this presented three options. One, the fossil might be young. Two, the soft tissue could just be a biofilm. And three, there might be a previously unknown preservation process. Now this fossil was found in the Pertasius layer, which at its youngest means it's about 66 million years old. So we can sort of rule out the first option. Now, there was papers going back and forth about the biofilm, but I want to focus on what Mary's conclusion was, which was option number three. Because while iron is safe and highly useful inside hemoglobin, loose iron particles can wreak havoc on our cells in a process of cross-linking. Iron can trigger a series of reactions, eventually causing proteins and other cellular structures to unravel and fuse together in a tangled use. And in a living brain, cross-linking can cause dementia. And Mary Schweitzer immediately realized after randomly going to a lecture about issues that degrade the brain that in dead tissue, cross-linking can cause preservation. And she saw that leather is produced by applying chemicals to hides that cross-link their proteins and cross-link proteins are extremely durable and bacteria can no longer eat them and degrade them. So after watching this presentation about the degradation of brains, she immediately reexamined her specimens and she saw that each sample was loaded with tiny iron particles. So she examined this possible scenario. And she saw that this iron is released from hemoglobin as it seeps out into tissues and bones and high concentration it initiates cross-linking. And soft tissues are most affected and they're preserved like leather. Tissues that are cross-linked and protected safely inside the hard bone could potentially survive for millions of years. So this story seemed reasonable, but Mary did not know about it. So she came up with an experiment where she had two sort of sets of beakers where she had some blood vessels in just regular water and then she had blood vessels in water with iron, the same iron particles that vessels in water turned to much in just three days. But after two years, those soaked in iron-rich blood with no signs of degradation. Now she's still doing the experiment six years later and the results are the same. And of course, two to six years is far from 68 million. Projections suggest that the process might work for millions of years, but we don't know if iron is still enough. That said, her experiment is definitely a good start and it's a great example of how the scientific method is used. And what's interesting is to do her experiment, she needed an animal that was a good analog for the T-Rex and the animal she chose was an ostrich. So that's just more example that birds are dinosaurs. And I'm just going to end it there. You got to thank you very much, Atheist Junior. And I think we're having a little bit of lag on my side, folks. So bear with us if it's a little bit laggy, but do want to let you know, folks, I am going to put just in case you were here last night, we tried something out where you could submit your super chat through the crowd fund that we are doing right now. And so I'm going to put that link into the live chat right now and I want you to let me know if the super chat link is working. Basically you can buy it as a perk through the crowd fund. And folks, I don't know if you know, but we are 100% thrilled that as of right now we have made it to over 100% of our original goal, as you can see on the far right side of your screen. And we are now striving for our reach goal. So we are almost there for the reach goal as well, which is honestly super awesome, you guys. I am so pumped as, folks, if you haven't heard, if you have been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers and your ears, tomorrow is going to be one of the biggest, baddest main event debates we have ever hosted, Dr. Kenny Rhodes, Christian and Scholar. We'll be here debating Matt Dillahunty. You don't want to miss it, folks, and that crowd fund in order to make that event happen is still open. So if you want to help us reach that stretch goal, I highly encourage you to do that at the link I'm about to throw in chat. And so with that, thank you very much, Nephilim Free and Atheist Junior. The floor is all yours for open conversation. So I would respond to a couple of things that you said. First, you said that with the right light, they look like human footprints. I think that's preposterous. They clearly are human. You say they don't have a natural stride, the nine feet, but the creationist says that when man got off the Ark, he was nine feet tall. That's exactly according to the Bible and according to genetic entropy and the fossil record showing that organisms have gotten much smaller over time than humans being an organism would have gotten smaller too. And so right off the flood, you would have had man get on off the Ark and they would have all been nine feet, maybe 12. Okay, we're in the fossil record. We're in the fossil record. Does it show nine feet tall humans? Well, the Glen Rose, Texas footprints. You say where I show Glen Rose. Where are the skeletons? We don't have to have a skeleton. We have a human footprint. Now you said also that soft tissue, you know, as Mary Schweitzer, Mary Schweitzer, Mary Schweitzer, did, you know, other scientists, numerous ones now, have verified that soft tissue actually does exist in these specimens. And the problem is that the vesicles, the blood vesicles that some of these are found in the ostracites are so small that blood of enough quantity to bring enough iron would be an enormous amount of iron to get enough blood to get enough iron in there to preserve it. So iron can't be the explanation because, because you can't get enough. These, these ossicles have blood vessels in them. There's so minute that a single blood vessel, a blood cell at a time can fit through there. That's it. So you can't get enough iron to be trapped in there to preserve it. That doesn't work. You said also. Last point. And then we're going to kick it over to Atheist Jr. Sure. You said the Chicksaw, you know, thing with the KT boundary proves, you know, that the deep time thing. But let me ask you this. If, if the flood of Noah actually occurred and if the iridium that was inside that, that is a layer inside the earth, like many layers of strata on the earth, if that iridium was inside the earth and it was, and it came out during a period of time, a moment in time as the waters were erupting from the earth as the flood and covered the continents, it could also create that very same iridium layer that you say was produced by an asteroid. So there's a creationist explanation for it, this very sound. So we will give him a chance to respond. I also want to mention Atheist Jr. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but your camera is no longer showing you. Yeah. I turned off my camera to try and help with the lag. I hope that's okay. Gotcha. Since there's a lag, we'll let it fly this time. Okay. Okay. So I, I counted the, the soft tissue, the iron, and then talking about the flood. Was there an argument you made before that, Neff that I was supposed to respond to also? Well, you said that the human footprints work remarkably human when the right light is applied to them and being a trained by the New York Institute of photography. I'm going to call that one bunk. Well, I don't think that if I said that I said that, well, that is what you said. But you said they begin to look superficially like human footprints. Let's give them a chance to respond. Yeah. No, I said, when you're looking at the proper. When you're looking at, you're doing an analysis where you see the full footprints, where they're not eroded. Well, no, no. The top part of the footprint isn't eroded. Now, what you said was when the, when you apply the right light to them in the angle of you, that they appear to superficially look like human footprints. I call that erroneous. You can trust my, you know, my, my deposition on that or not. But I'll just tell you this. I'm trained by the New York Institute of photography. I know what things look like really good. And I'm telling you they're human footprints. The idea that they will begin to look like human footprints because of the light, right? Light and camera angle is just, it doesn't work. Sorry. Okay. I found in my opening statement, what I said, I'm just going to read it again. Okay. So when well cleaned such tracks show definite indications of tridactyl, dinosaurian digit patterns. Some of the reputed human prints are erosional features or other natural irregularities. They do not show clear human features without a, without selective highlighting, nor do they occur in natural striding sequences. Now, when it comes to the, the dinosaur soft tissue and Mary sweatshirts, she literally found the iron particles in the, in looking at the samples under a microscope. So I'm not sure what, what you're saying that because the particles are small, that means that there couldn't be iron particles. She found the iron particles. I said that iron couldn't have been deposited there in enough quantity to preserve it. And there's actually been a scientific study by evolutionists that say that iron can preserve blood vesicles no more than about 200 years. Because that's the, the maximum amount of iron that can be brought into it. Iron is highly president. To a, to a, to a secular study that was produced just a few years ago. So even the secular camp is arguing against the secular camp on that one, they say 200 years maximum. Iron is plentiful inside blood. It's found in hemoglobin. But the quantity necessary to preserve all that soft tissue. So I'll just say this, the scientific community run mostly by evolutionists, don't argue that it's actually soft tissue. They have to try to find a way to salvage their uniform materialism by claiming that soft tissue is preserved by iron. But the problem is that the blood vesicle, blood vessels that lead to these ossicles, you might want to look at that or turn them up, are so small that only a single, maybe two blood vessels, two blood cells at a time can flow through them. At that rate, you're not going to get enough iron deposited to preserve it. And a scientific study produced by evolutionists themselves says the maximum from evidence from ostrich bones is that the, the maximum time that these things can be preserved by iron is 200 years. So you've got evolutionists on one side saying 200 years max. That's it. Not hundreds of thousands, not millions of years. These guys say 200 years. And then the guys that say, no, the evidence for the creationists can't be true because it could happen for millions of years. There's a contradiction there. So your own camp is, is fighting itself on this thing because they don't want to accept the evidence. So. This is a, this is a T rex femur. Okay. This is a huge animal. And she, and her hypothesis was that when a large animal dies and the blood begins to decompose, iron is released from the hemoglobin and it seeps out into the tissues and bones and high concentration. And this is what initiates the cross linking. And the issue is not, you know, whether it's a lot of soft tissue or even if it's soft tissue or not, the issue is whether or not this is an old specimen. If this T rex is old, 66 million years or older, or if it could fit into a younger creationist timeframe, which it cannot. And the fact that it's from the Cretaceous layer proves this because Cretaceous, the Cretaceous layer, they can date those layers using radiometric dating, which gives you absolute dates. Plus AT boundary. Here's the problem with your Cretaceous idea. You said in your statement that, you know, birds evolved after dinosaurs. This is the common belief that's been put forth for 150 years by the ancient scientific belief of evolutionists. But, you know, modern scientists have discovered that, that, that idea is false. Modern birds of numerous different types coexisted with dinosaurs. So that idea is bunk. Let me give you a name. That's not exactly true. You're going to quote from band. No, you're going to quote from band. No, I'm going to share screen with you right now and show you. Can I respond to what you just said? Sure. But let me show you the evidence first. If you don't mind. So you're, you're wrong about that. What you see below is the name of the study. There it is right there. And this is what they discovered. These fully modern species of birds are now known to have coexisted with dinosaurs because they've been dug out of the same strata in which dinosaurs have been found. Flamingos, sand grouse, loon, mouse bird, semi-era, helming bird, rim, deer killer, ibis, obscene, songbirds, bell bird, grebe, cuckoo roller, pigeon, egret, parrot, owl, penguin, duck, loon, albatross, comerant, sandpiper, and avicet, all found in the very same strata as dinosaurs. So that means your ancient idea that dinosaurs did not coexist with birds, modern birds, that they evolved from birds is bunk, because all these different species of completely modern birds have been found in the same strata with dinosaurs. That means in the Cretaceous, that means they coexisted. So that means your idea that birds evolved after dinosaurs from small theropod dinosaurs is bunk. And here's a scientific study that questions it. They say, right here, here, bird dinosaur theory of evolution challenged. Was it the other way around? This is from Science Daily, highly secular evolutionist website. Most of their articles are written by evolutionist PhDs. So they're scratching their heads. You guys are scratching your heads, trying to put your evolution theory together against modern science. Now, what you need to do is to be able to debunk the depictions and ancient man's knowledge of dinosaurs. If these creatures weren't dinosaurs, what in the world were they that man depicted in his art so much? What can it be? I'm going to respond to what you were saying about the birds. I don't, I never really claimed that dinosaurs and birds couldn't have coexisted at the same time. In fact, hold on. You get to a certain point when, yeah, I would say that birds evolved from theropod feather dinosaurs. And it gets to a certain point in the fossil record or the evolution of dinosaurs where you start to be able to not tell which is the theropod feather dinosaur and which is a bird. And right around that time is archaeopteryx. That doesn't change anything. Yeah, it does. The truth is that modern, numerous modern types of birds have been found in the same strata with dinosaurs. It's now known as fully modern bird. Well, that kills the evolutionists millions of years because you believe that they, they evolved millions of years after. That's what you guys have been telling us. You said, you said if we played back your opening statement, you said that the dinosaurs, the birds came after the dinosaurs. That's what they evolved after they evolved after theropod feather dinosaurs. That's right. Transition. Theropod dinosaurs. But that's not true. We know. It was millions of years later. They coexisted. We know that today. Right. I agree. So your idea is false. It's been overturned by modern science. They coexisted. Yeah, I know. They didn't evolve. They didn't come into being after dinosaurs became largely or, or completely extinct. They coexisted with hadrosaurus and. They are birds are dinosaurs. Okay. Doesn't matter. Our dinosaurs. Well, you can say that. No, you can say that all you want to. I'm just pointing out the evolutionists have been telling us 150 years that dinosaurs went extinct before birds existed because birds didn't exist until 60 million years later. But that's not true. Now we know they coexisted. And that also means that the depictions of humans making art of real known observable species of dinosaurs is also true because they also coexisted. What rebuttal could you possibly have to that? Well, I would say that if some, some evolutionary scientists claim something about when the evolution of birds happened that was later found to be wrong and they corrected their data, then that's just a scientific method in action. And that's a good thing. I'm glad they fixed their mistake. Creationist should try that once in a while. So evolution is never falsifiable because they can stretch it like a rubber band any which away and just adopt the idea. So if birds, modern birds coexisted with dinosaurs and they didn't then what is the reason for believing they evolved from dinosaurs? Modern birds are dinosaurs. So when did the modern birds come into existence after dinosaurs became extinct? Like this. No birds. 1960s or not. But forget modern birds. Birds are dinosaurs. Birds evolved from feathered theropod dinosaurs. It was a smooth transition from feather. We don't have a fossil record shows. Yes, we do. We don't have a fossil record that shows smooth transition for anything. Yeah, we do. We have archaeopteryx and Darwin predicted that Darwin predicted that a fossil would be found of a bird like or animal with unfused wing fingers. Two years after he made that prediction, they found archaeopteryx. Slam dunk, boom. Evolution proven. So here's the thing. Here's the thing. The world's famous, most famous ornithologist who's Alan Fiducius says, please let me, please, please let me finish. Archaeopteryx is completely a bird. It's a perching bird. That unique species, maybe, but it's a bird. So yeah, it's also. And I showed you evidence from evolutionists. That many modern, completely modern species of birds like owls and flamingos and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Co-existed with dinosaurs in the Cretaceous. So if you're going to say they evolved later, you got to show us this fossil record that they evolved later because nobody's got that for anything, much less birds. So the idea that you guys have been pushing for 150 or 70 years now that birds evolved after dinosaurs is not true. They modern birds of numerous types. Co-existed in the Cretaceous with various species of dinosaur. So if you're going to say they evolved from dinosaurs, you've got to be able to show when. And guess what, pal? There is no scientific evidence for that. No fossil evidence of that. Nothing. No evidence of what? You can believe what you want to believe, but you can't show any scientific evidence for this idea that the birds evolved later. You have zero argument against the historical evidence that man coexisted with dinosaurs because he depicted dinosaurs across the world having coexisted with him. All you can do is say, well, that's not really a dinosaur. Like you can say, that's not really a human footprint because of the lighting and camera angle. That's all you. Okay. I have a question. Why is it that they found cave paintings that show cave paintings in France of horses that show incredible, beautiful detail, but your supposed dinosaur drawings look like a three year old drew them. They do. I think I proved in my opening statement that that's not true. Well, dinosaurs don't balance on their, they don't balance on their tails. They don't balance on their tails. Yeah, you did. No, I showed a picture of a dinosaur that stood upright to make itself. You know, look, look, you know, ostentatious. And balancing on his tail. Right. And that's, that's a behavior that even modern evolution. That's a behavior that even modern evolutionists would agree would be had by numerous different species of dinosaurs. Just like black bears that stand up on their two feet to make themselves look fearful. And gorillas do the same thing. They, they stand on two feet and run at you and pound their chest because they want to make you look fierce. But they normally walk around on four feet on, you know, knuckle walkers until they get threatened. Then they stand up on two feet and pound their chest because they want to make you look fierce. But they normally walk around on four feet on, you know, knuckle walkers until they get threatened. Then they stand up on two feet and run at you and pound their chest. See, that's not what I said. I said, balancing on its tail. There's no reason it couldn't have. Are you saying there's, but they don't do, yes, it would, because it would have broken the bones in its tail. That's not how they, yeah, that's not how dinosaurs explain why we believe that. Because we've never seen any dinosaur body plan that shows that they could do that. A Tyrannosaurus rex walks around with its tail erect and up in the air for balance. It doesn't sit down and sit on its tail with its tail bent. We've never seen that. Okay. So maybe you're not familiar with the countless dinosaur fossils that show dinosaurs with their heads flung all the way back to their pelvis and their tails flung up way over their heads. Are you telling me that the tail of, of most dinosaurs was so relaxed, flexion so much that it was unable to curl upwards over its back like the tail of a colleague when he gets aggressive. Are you kidding me? What's your evidence for that? Well, you're describing the death position of a dinosaur. I'm talking about how they would have walked around. You're just spouting ideas. You're not telling anything scientific. Okay. I have evidence of that because they're, they've done experiments where they, they take a, like, I think it's like a chicken and they sort of attach something to something weighted on its, on its backside that represents a tail and they observed that the chicken starts walking around just like a Tyrannosaurus Rex would in the same position using the tail to balance out the body weight. Okay. So how does that prove that their tail would break? It doesn't sit on its new tail. How does that prove that the tail would break if the animal stood up on two feet? You're not, you're not giving any. Because the, because the, can you bring up that picture? I sure I could, I guess. But you're not, you're not giving me, you're just telling me your ideas. You're just denialist ideas. You're not giving me any scientific reason to believe that the tail lacks so much flexion. Dinosaurs had some stiff tail that was so stiff. Well, all the other animals of the world have tails with remarkable flexion. The dinosaurs, no, it couldn't have been true because their tail is so stiff. This is just an idea in your head. It's nothing scientific to believe about that. That's ridiculous. You're just making up ideas to fit as an argument. That's all you're doing is inventing things. All right, Neff. Let's, he asked to see that picture. Let's see this juicy picture. Okay. Sure. Let me, well, let me try to find it. It was like the orange dinosaur that's. Yeah, it's a, let's see here. Sure. And as I show, there are numerous fossils. Here, here it comes. Numerous fossils of. Of dinosaurs that are dead. Buried alive in the sediments of the Florida Noah. Where their tails curled up over their top of their head. But you're saying this creature couldn't have bent the back end of its tail enough to stand upright. The tail is bent almost 90 degrees. Not from its, not from its interior. It's not. And it goes down toward the ground. Why is this drawing so poorly detailed? Well, look, I could show you 90 more pictures that, you know, were not as less detailed than that. But, you know, the truth is all you're doing is looking at a picture that depicts a creature with a remarkable tail standing upright and it's bent. And then saying that it couldn't have bent that way because it would break. And I find it preposterous. I'm saying that because we know based on the body plans and based on the skeletal structure of tons of theropod dinosaurs that this is not a position that dinosaurs would be in. And this drawing on the left, you say it's a dinosaur. I think it looks like a paper clip. Like there's no detail to it. Why is it that the French cave drawings of horses have such beautiful detail and this looks like a paper clip. Well, so I'm hearing is your ideas. You know, I'm not hearing, I'm not hearing. Can you explain that? Can you explain that? It doesn't look like a paper clip. But it's. Why doesn't it have any details? Why is it so poorly detailed? It's not even drawing. Well, you know, this is just, uh, let me show you why. Because of this and the countless other examples I can provide about 60 more and you'll say the same kind of thing about that. Oh, that can't be a protoceratops. See, you're always going to find some reason not to believe because of your paradigm. See, but I could show you, you know, 50 more examples and you'll say each one. No, that can't be that. No, I can't be that. That's so evolutionism is the package of denialism. It's not science. And that's why I say, uh, is this why is this? Is that a stegosaurus? No, that's not a stegosaurus. No, it sure looks like one. But no, I can't because those aren't those spines. Those are leaves. It's a plant behind that. This is like a really more of a plant that happens to grow around an animal. Yeah. Yeah. An animal can stand in front of a plant. That is why that makes that looks like a plant, right? Yeah. Have you ever seen leaves before? No, I don't think that looks like a plant in a friend. Okay. Can we move forward to the, uh, your, your argument about the KT boundary? Well, I, uh, the KT boundary, I asked you a question about it. I said, if the flood of Noah occurred and if the waters that flooded the earth came out of the earth, like creationists say, and like the Bible says, then if there was, if there was waters encountered a deposit of iridium that was deposited on the earth and as they come out of the earth, the waters eroded that iridium and deposited on the earth in a strata that got buried in subsequent strata. We would have a layer of iridium on the earth. Just as we do today. Right. So the point I'm making is, isn't it true that the creationist model can explain it in the same way that you, your imagined idea of, uh, um, you know, some impact, which I would argue is not an actual impact, but an intrusion event, a gas bubble that burst from the earth during the Noahic flood, uh, the, the, at Chicksalope, but it's not actually an asteroid impact. Uh, there's no conclusive scientific evidence of that. In fact, there's arguments against it, but, but, but let's imagine if it's true that the waters that flooded the earth or encountered a deposit of iridium or even coal or anything else, right? And it wrote it then sped it out on the earth and then subsequent materials came out of the earth and deposited over the top of it. And on top of that, then we would have a layer of iridium. So isn't it true that the creationist model, the flood of Noah could explain that iridium layer as well? Well, that's a big if, if the flood of Noah occurred. That's all I'm asking. If the flood of Noah did occur, wouldn't that be plausible? If it occurred. Not really because the flood itself isn't plausible. And, uh, this is just an ad hoc explanation. No, that's not the point. The question is this. If. Let's go with the press because the, the radiometric dating of the radiometric dating of the iridium shows it's older than 6,000 years. So no, no, no. We're dealing with logic here. Not radiometric dating assumptions. Okay. So not an assumption. It's an absolute date. If there was a deposit of iridium in the earth and the earth cracked open and waters gushed out of the earth and deposited various materials in order in which they were in the earth below and dumped them out on the earth. And in order in the opposite order in which they existed inside the earth geologically, which is what would have happened had that occurred, right? Then we would have a layer of iridium covered with other sentiments on top. Once the iridium had been expended. It wrote it out and spent out onto the earth. Then other materials would have continued to come out and eroded when sediments would have flowed across them and buried that and we would end up with a layer of iridium. Isn't that true? I'm only asking you a logic question. Not whether or not you believe it's true. Wouldn't that also, wouldn't that be pop pop? When isn't that if the flood of Noah occurred, wouldn't that potentially explain a layer of iridium that's global? I think I don't, I don't think that water. You can't lay down iridium like that. Well, your position is ridiculous. The question you're asking is ridiculous. How is it ridiculous to ask if a massive amount of water is gushing out of the earth and a crack in the earth, right? And it encounters a deposit of iridium and it's going to deposit, it's going to erode that iridium out of the earth and dump it onto the earth until the iridium is gone, right? Then as it continues to erode, other stuff is going to keep coming out, right? And deposit over the top of that. That's logical, right? So if that occurred, the creationist model couldn't easily explain there being an iridium layer across the global because that's exactly what it would have happened during the Neue Flood, right? But I'll never get you to admit that that's a logical plausible explanation, even if you don't believe that the Neue Flood occurred. You just won't admit that it's logical that the creationist has a potential explanation for it. Well, you know, the, it's kind of hard to say that it wasn't from an asteroid impact when we have the massive Chicksalube crater. I mean, how do you explain that if it wasn't from an asteroid? I've explained that. There is evidence that it's not, Chicksalube is not an asteroid impact, but it's actually a gas, a mud bubble that burst out of the earth during the Neue Flood and because firstly of the fineness of its boundary and the sedimentary layers that did exist there indicate that the materials in which this occurred were all soft sedimentary materials and not something hard. It's not like an asteroid hit the hard earth and created an impact. These were sedimentary strata all around the impact point, which claimed to be an impact point. And that can only occur if the materials hadn't had time to concrete into stone. Well, the date of the date of the impact coincides precisely with the KT pound boundary. Slightly more than 66 million years ago. Well, I'm sorry, but you can't just, you can't just throw out, it's not an assumption. Radiometric dating gives absolute dates and you can't just throw that out for, and give your application instead. Radiometric dating is not empirical science. There's no way to date. Now, radiometric dating cannot empirically date a rock. I'm so happy to inform you about this. When evolution of scientists date a rock, now the method by which they date a rock is really to high tech. It's excellent science. Really good stuff. No problem there, but they get a variety of dates. That's why they call it radiometric because they get a metric. They don't get a single date. They get a number of them. So they'll date a rock and they'll get 60 million years, 42 million years, 98 million years, 76 million years, 140 million years, and it works like this. How do you think that index fossil in that rock? Well, we think that one's 104 million years, 104, which dates, we got one that was 80 and 126. Pick the 126. Okay, got that. Discard the rest. That's how it is. That's how it works. Have you been in the lab with your radiometrically dating samples? Evolutionist scientists admit this. Oh, do you have evidence of that? Yes, sir. Okay, show it. I will. Thank you. I'll be waiting. I'm so glad you asked me. I'm so glad you asked me. I think you're, you're, you're really not, you know, you're, there's a lot you don't realize. I know you're, you're, you're gung-ho and you're, you're, you know, you're, you're really into this. But, but, but there's so much that you don't know. I'm looking for the, the link right now. Here it is. Okay. So let me see here. I want to take this time, folks. It's what I thought. Sorry. Sorry, James. No worries. On the bottom right of your screen, folks, we are, we are pumped as it was originally scheduled for today, but then we found out from Kent Hovind's tech that their tech stuff is currently being worked on. And so we are shooting for the Kent Hovind debate between him and Dr. Dan Cardinale, what you see at the bottom right of your screen to be this month rather than tonight. And again, special thanks. We do appreciate Ithias Jr. for jumping in as well as Neflin for you to be fair. You also jumped in last minute. And so I want to give a huge thank you to both of our guests and I will switch into screen share for you, Nef. They can see now. Thank you. So, excuse me. Um, uh, uh, EH Andrews, Professor of Materials, University of London said, whatever the figures arrived by the dating dates, they are weeded out before publication and scientific journals. If they do not, if, if they do not accord with the preconceived dates to the evolutionary geologic column. And in here from, um, this particular study, uh, 1977, in general, dates in the correct ballpark are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in discordant with other data are subtle and publish and discrepancies for the explained. Here's another J.E. O'Rourke wrote, the intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning and use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to link a good, to think a good reply feeling the explanations are not worthy of the trouble as long as it brings to brings results. And I could provide numerous others. So the, the point is when, when it comes to, uh, radiometric dating is not an empirical method of dating anything. The water moves radioisotopes into and out of rocks constantly. That's why your government and your local facility is constantly worried about potassium and argon and all the other, you know, and radium and stuff in the water that you drink because water is moving radioisotopes through the rocks into your drinking water. Okay. That's happens everywhere on the earth. Right. And that means radiometric dating processes are not empirical science. They're based upon assumption because isotopes are added to and removed from rocks by water moving through them every time it rains. Every time. So here's an example. If, if you have a rock and I respond to what you said about circularity, okay, because I don't think this is circularity. This is the normal scientific process of finding your understanding with new data. And this is what happens in all sciences. If look at an inconsistent data point is found and geologists just asked the question, is this date wrong or is saying that the current geological time scale is wrong. Well, the former is usually going to be more likely because there's a vast amount of data behind the understanding of the time scales. And every rock is not expected to just preserve isotopic systems for millions of years. But, you know, inconsistencies can be found in dating because of contamination and other things, but they don't just throw out the dates they don't want and choose them. You know, I just showed you a quote from two scientists to say that's exactly what they do. And they're not creationists. And you just say they don't do that. I just showed you two sources from two university professors who were geologists and who state that's exactly what they do. And you say they don't do that. So it's you against the two university professors who are secular university scientists who work in geology and you're going to say they don't do that, but they say they do. Who knows more? You are them. Who's right? You're saying they don't do that, but they're admitting publicly that's exactly what we do. You're just reading quote minds that make it sound like that. So should I bring them up again? It's going to look like a quote mind or is it going to look like that? No, it is a quote mind because that's a famous Kent Hoven creationist quote mind. And if you look at the original scientific paper where it talks about the circularity, the sentence, the first and second sentence, there's a bunch of text in between those two sentences that Kent Hoven cut out. No, there is. Because he's dishonest. Yes, there is. I've seen the paper. Not my quotes. And I could provide you 20 more. But I'm sure you have a bunch of quote minds now. Well, this is like you're saying that those look like human footprints only when you get them at the right angle with the light. Then it looks like a human footprint, but it's not right. It's not. See, this is you're not aware of the fact that evolutionist scientists themselves admit. So all of all I've heard from you is that, you know, I predicted this when we came into this debate before we actually started debating. You were going to center your entire argument was going to be based on largely that that your your imaginary idea that you know that rating radiometric dating is empirical science when every scientist in the world knows it's not empirical. And this allegedly produce your right. But you haven't discredited anything about the evidence I've provided or could provide that man coexisted with dinosaurs. Man has depicted himself in the very rock record with dinosaurs in art for thousands of years. Creatures that look exactly like known species of dinosaurs in numerous cultures all over the world. So you have to tell me if those are not dinosaurs, what kind of creature looks like that, but is not a dinosaur that man would have to find what a kind is first for me to answer that. What's a kind? Well, so you're telling me that those are not dinosaurs. So what kind of creature was it that man depicted if it's not a dinosaur? So you say it's not a dinosaur. What's a kind? It looks like it. It looks like a dinosaur. So if it's not a dinosaur, what organism is it? It's a paperclip. I think it looks like a paperclip. That's your logic. It's not a stegosaurus. It's an animal that looks like one with leaves behind it somehow. And that's what it looks like. Which is just as valid as your argument. It looks like this. So it must be this. That's cognitive. That's confirmation bias. It's not a seropod dinosaur that has a waddle under its neck. It just, they just depicted it accurately that has a waddle. Even though ancient man could never have seen the creature that has a waddle under its neck. What you're describing is confirmation bias. You want dinosaurs to live with man because you take the Bible to be true before you look for any scientific evidence. And then what you do is you twist the data to match what you want to be true. That's confirmation bias. So when you see these things, you think they look like a dinosaur. So, oh, this must be a dinosaur. This is created by a man. Oh, look, this confirms my position that the Bible is true. Here's what it really happens is I can show you things that look like dinosaurs and every two year old in the world or five year old would admit it. That's a dinosaur. But when evolutionists are asked, it's not a dinosaur anymore. And when that looks like a human footprint, it can't be one because it's in plexi, Texas in the same strata as a real seropod dinosaur, which evolutionists admit are real seropod dinosaur tracks in the same strata. So those can't be human, even though that's exactly what they look like much more than human footprints found allegedly six million years old. So all I'm hearing really is a huge packet of denial. That's can't be, that can't be, that can't be radiometric dating. This can't be, that can't be, this can't be radiometric dating. I'm not hearing anything. Oh, you know, this, this isn't true because radiometric dating, which gives absolute dates, shows that the timescale doesn't work. Yeah, that's, that's not a good answer at all. I mean, I predicted before you debated me in the text chat that you were going to center your argument on a radiometric dating because you believe it's an empirical science. And this is your whole case. Radiometric dating proves evolution improves the deep time is true. It proves man couldn't have coexisted with dinosaurs. And that's exactly what you've done. And that's not good enough. It's not good enough. Of course not. Because you already decided that the Bible is true. I've shown you two corrections from scientists. I could show you 20 more. The evolutionist scientists themselves admit radiometric dating is not empirical. And scientists pick the date out of the group that they get when they date something and decide which one of them is true. I don't care how many quote minds you have. That's not empirical science then front friend. Yeah. I agree. Quote minds aren't empirical science. No. Are you saying those scientists are wrong when they say that scientists pick the date when they date something, they get a plethora of dates. They get a half a dozen dates. Right. And they, it is wrong to frame it that way because. You don't pick your position. The position you want. That's wrong. That's wrong. Like you who, who picked the data to match what they want, which is you saying, oh, well, I want this to match the Bible, which I already decided is true. No, no, no. And that's not real science. That's not what scientists do. Your quote minds are misrepresenting science. No, no, no. Stop it. Stop it. What do you need to understand? What you need to understand is this. The psych secular camp scientists admit openly. They get a group of dates for it. And they pick the one that fits their ideas of evolution and discard the rest. They admit it openly. A dozen prominent evolutionist university professors who are geology professors admit this openly. That they pick the date and discard the rest. There's no quote mining here. It's not fake. I'm not false. I'm not providing false information. They really do do that. And I can see that you're very, very adamant that that can't be true. You're very determined to believe that that can't possibly be true. Although you're very determined to believe that the Bible is true enough. That's confirmation. That's not science. So exactly. That's what I'm saying. You've already decided the Bible is true. I'm going to twist all of the evidence to match your, your preconceived position. And that's fallacious. So this is becoming a little bit redundant. So we might want to move on to something, something maybe new before we go into Q and A. We've got just a little bit of time left. Sure. Well, my entire argument centers upon, how do you dismiss the depictions art and literature that man has depicted accurately of known species of dinosaurs about a dozen different species. And the only argument that the opposition has is to just like they deny footprints. They deny that scientists admit that, you know, when they date something, they get a range of dates and they pick the one and discard the rest. Even though every geologist who works in a laboratory, a geothermal lab and conducts radiometric dating, they know exactly what they do. And that's exactly what they do. And there's been a dozen of them have had the gumption to come out and say, this is what we do. And so all I'm hearing is denial. I'm not hearing scientific evidence that man coding coexist with dinosaurs. I hear assumptions and denial. That's all I'm hearing. Well, why is it that no human fossils have been found in the same layer as dinosaur fossils then? That's an excellent question. For the same reason we haven't found a giraffe fossil with a flamingo fossil. Because the odds of that happening is like billions and billions to one. What do you mean? They're both in the... What you're asking for is finding a needle in a field of haystacks. That's what you're asking. If dinosaurs live with man, if dinosaurs live with man, then there should be dinosaurs and human fossils in the same layer. And there should be a jumble of all different animals, dinosaurs, fossils. There should be mammals in the pre-Cambrian layers. It should all be jumbled up in the same layers. It should be. If they all live at the same time during the flood. But it's not. You have very ordered layers where you have the simplest life forms at the very bottom and you get more and more complex as you go up. And you have no fossils of humans in the same layers as dinosaurs. You have five layers of geologic column separating them. Can you explain that? So let me tear apart your idea. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, and let's say how many human beings might there have existed on the earth at that time? Now the creationist explanation is possibly one to two million people. So let's say there's two million people just to be generous on the earth when the flood of Noah occurred. What's the likelihood that we're going to find any human fossil in the same strata as a dinosaur when there's millions of dinosaurs and only two million human beings? That we would just happen to find a strata. Look, the evolutionists have the same problem. You don't seem to realize this. You're learning, I don't know. There are countless creatures in the geologic column that evolutionists believe coexist to be each other, but they can't find them in the same strata. So your idea, this is a fake argument. You can't support your own evolution theory with that argument, much less make an argument against my views. I mean, why don't we find, since evolutionists believe, for example, that Hadrosaurus coexisted with numerous other species of dinosaurs, how come we don't find Hadrosaurus in the same strata as all these other different species of dinosaurs? We just don't. We're lucky to find a Hadrosaurus fossil. So your argument is fake. It doesn't mean anything that we don't find a human in the same strata as a dinosaur in the same way that we don't find a Hadrosaur in the same strata as a T-Rex or as any number of other theropod dinosaurs or anything else. It's just a fake argument. You're making stuff up as you go. You're saying that Hadrosaurus weren't found in the same layers as Cretaceous dinosaurs? Is that what you were saying? No, I didn't say that. I'm saying we don't find Hadrosaurus in the same strata as all the other creatures that are allegedly coexisted with it. Well, shouldn't we if all these animals existed at the same time after Noah's flood? But we don't. And so your argument is that we should find a human. And so we should find a human in the same strata as this particular dinosaur. It's just the same fake argument. See, that's all. You can't support your worldview. Why is it a fake argument? If humans' dinosaurs live together, then wouldn't it make sense that they were in the same layer? Well, if Hadrosaurus coexisted with these other species, shouldn't we find them in the same strata? See what I mean? Answer my question without diverting. You know, it's the same fake argument. You see what I mean? You do see. You can't answer the question. I just did it. No. Answer it by pointing out that it's a fake argument. Yeah, exactly. You can't answer it. So you just pivot and say something else. It's a fake argument. Okay. Doesn't it make sense that they would be in the same layer, though, if they coexisted? It's a fake argument. I just explained why. Can we go to Q&A, James? I'm talking to a wall here. Yeah. I want to be, uh, want to attack the arguments rather than the person. I apologize. We will go into Q&A shortly. Any last points that you guys have before we do? I'm eating. I don't go ahead. Go ahead. No, I honestly don't. I feel like we kind of went over everything. I would just spend a couple of seconds to say that the evolutionist camp depends desperately on radiometric dating, which is not empirical science. And, uh, evolutionist scientists themselves admit it. And, uh, there is, there was no empirical evidence that man didn't coexist with dinosaurs. Man is depicted dinosaurs. He is, uh, wrote legends, uh, even right up to the days of Marco Polo of coexisting with and experiencing the presence of dinosaurs. Uh, the idea is an ancient Babylonian idea of deep time millions of years. The Babylonian, the Hindu Brahmin came up with the idea. They gave the idea to the ancient Greeks and the Egyptians and the Babylonians. So it's an ancient myth is put forth today as science. We'll give you the last word. If you want to draw together the threads from this debate as well, Atheist junior. Right. Well, um, you know, I, uh, I do agree with you, James, you know, I shouldn't attack the other debaters. So I do apologize to Neff for, no worries for that. I, I, you know, it's easy to get a little heated in debates. And, you know, uh, I, I did take this debate on, I think about three hours notice. So I'd have to ask you guys to sort of bear with me. But, um, yeah, um, I would just say that basically, I think if you look at the evidence of the commentary impact, the, the, uh, Of the chikshalube crater and the radiometric dating and how the dates match up to the impact date and the, uh, dating of how old the iridium is, I think it makes sense that the most likely explanation is that, uh, the dinosaurs and the Cretaceous era went extinct from that event and that sort of, uh, you know, underpins my whole argument. So I'll just leave it at that. Gotcha. And we're going to jump into that Q and A folks. So thanks very much for your questions. And want to let you know, folks, our guests are linked in the description. So if you want to hear more from our guests, you certainly can also want to let you know if you're listening via podcasts, because all of our debates are uploaded as podcasts as well. Want to let you know, you can find our guests links in the description box for that podcast episode too. So we're jumping into the questions. This one coming in from doubting Thomas says, for the Atheists in chat, please check out GA Sola. Great content. Thumbs up. And Kenny Horne Rickson. Thanks for your question says question for both. Did you know that NASA uses vaccines to brainwash people into believing in the globe earth religion? Gotcha. Well, what do you guys think? Do you buy it? Or are you skeptical of this idea? What was it asking about the flatter? They said, did you know that NASA uses vaccines to brainwash people into believing in the globe earth religion? Well, I got both of my vaccines, but I believed in the globe earth religion before that. So I would say no. I'm free. Absurdity. That's my only comment. Magellan says, so we are playing the cherry picking squiggles game. They don't say who it's addressed to, but because I know their position, I think it's aimed at you, Nephilim, free. What do you have to say to that? I say, squiggle on. I agree. Next up. Thanks for your super sticker. My name is mud. Appreciate it. And Magellan says, Nephilim, you can't use nonsense as an argument for further nonsense. The arc is an impossible joke. I say the truth seems nonsense to those who are opposed to it. Gears of Yoda, thanks for your generous super chat. Appreciate it says evolution happened. The earth is a globe. Thanks, James. Your channel is awesome. Thank you for your kind words. And Nephilim free will give you a chance to respond when they say evolution happened. I'm sorry. It's impossible. Gotcha. This one, Shogun Lobster. Thanks for your super chat says, Nephilim free. This debate is so embarrassing. I agree. How you spent so many years about, and what's the word? Wondering about the internet yet you still don't understand anything about dinosaurs, basic science or evolution. Well, I'd say when natural chemistry is able to create personality purpose, semiotics, information, algorithms, linguistics like grammar, punctuation, syntax, phonetics, semiotics, then we could believe the Babylonian and ancient Egyptian and Hindu Brahmin, but I don't fall for it. Gotcha. Just reminded me of a quick update. Want to give you folks as if you're a moderator and you haven't been around for a while, there are way more, you could say kind of ambitions. We're asking the moderators to take on. In particular, we're asking all the moderators to not debate with people in chat or to take even aside as we are striving to be uber-neutral, the most neutral we can possibly be. And so some moderators, we will have no hard feelings if you're like, hey, I really do love debating in chat. It's okay if you want to let us know to remove the wrench. We won't have hard feelings. We know that a lot of people love to debate in chat, but we also know that sometimes we fear that people might get the wrong idea about modern day debate as sometimes it just coincidentally will happen to be, let's say, all atheists or all Christian moderators on some nights, or at least majority atheists or majority Christian, whatever. And then sometimes people are like, oh, all these moderators are taking this position. Is this an atheist channel or a Christian channel? It's like, we are a purely natural or a neutral channel. And so thanks for your question. Michael Dresden says, it isn't bouncing on its tail but a total lie atheist. I think they're referring to the dinosaur, the orange dinosaur picture. I think they took it. I don't know if I said it was bouncing on its tail, but it certainly looks like it's resting on its tail. And the tail seems to be bent almost at a 90 degree angle. And to me that doesn't, in the picture, that doesn't look natural. Yeah, it just doesn't, it doesn't look. It looks like any dinosaur you've seen. No, it looks wrong to me. And we've never seen a dinosaur, theropod dinosaur body plan that's like this. This isn't how a T-rex sits or walks or balances. It's just ridiculous. It's a paperclip. When somebody says that the tail's bent like 90 degrees in that depiction, we know they're not dealing in reality. This one coming in from. Patriot University PhD says, please pick up your physiology Nobel Peace Prize. I love you Patriot University. I already have one from every university and every galaxy and every solar system in every universe. Gotcha. And Michael Lyons says, belief is the enemy of knowledge. And I don't know if either of you would run or respond to that or not. Well, I think, I think belief is knowledge is a subset of belief or maybe I have that backwards. I don't know. It's not an enemy of it. Wisdom comes from knowing God. Next up, spicy road says some cave art looks like astronauts wearing spacesuits and aliens. Do you believe that is accurate? Nephilim free. The depictions of beings that look like humans in spacesuits were carved after the fact they need to look into that a little bit deeper. That's fake. That didn't happen in ancient times or even medieval times. They were added later. People are not aware of it. Tovor Berth says, Neph, why is atheist not trusting two quotes bad but you not trusting 99% of scientists good. It's not like that at all. It's trusting scientists who make admissions like all the prominent evolution of scientists who admit the fossil record doesn't show the evidence of transition. All the way back to Stephen J. Gould. All the way back to the 20th century. All the way back to Charles Darwin and they still can't find them. Great question. Got you on this one coming in from, we have thrown some poop at Neph, so this one comes. Well, we have to be fair. Batman says, I think Neph is wrong with seriously AGR. Just saying quote mining and confirmation bias repeatedly instead of addressing more specifically is weak. Well, I will just say that this is my second debate that I've ever done and I took it on short notice. So I'm doing my best, guys. Got it. I want to remind you folks, both ATSJR and Nephilim Free are linked in the description. We really do appreciate them. As mentioned, folks, we're going to have this debate and then something fell through. And so both these guys jumped in with little prep time. So we really do appreciate these guys. Bubblegum Gun says, Neph, why would God genocide the dinosaurs? I don't know. When you can find the evidence that he did, you know, you could tell me about it. God didn't genocide anything. He put in place a mechanism that, that he had proclaimed from the beginning. So they genocided themselves. Gotcha. And thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Topher Berth strikes again says, the truth seems nonsense to those who oppose. Unquote. And then they say, do you not oppose evolution and think it nonsense, Nephilim Free? I would say the Bible says that every creature in the world had opposed God and changed its ways. And so just like man, when man chose to sin, he changed his ways and God has judgment against that. The animals were no different. Read the Bible carefully because it says the animals did the very same thing. Gotcha. And thank you very much for this question coming in from Smokey Saint. I don't know if there was a question that was meant to be attached to your super chat. I saw there was a super chat, but let me know if there was a question and you can just put it in the chat as a normal chat. This one coming in from, where did I put? Creo's question. Creo. Forgive me. Oh, here's one. Creo debunk says, Nephilim Free, about straw man evolution. If young earth creation evolved from flat earthers, that does not mean that flat earthers get extinct. I would say that the purple monkeys on Valus Pradoeum have not quite proven that the spiral starships are valid. So, you know, we're both at a standstill. Gotcha. And this one coming in from Fran Salas. Thank you very much for your question. It says three digits of archaeo, archaeopteryx and other birds have exact proportions, risk connections as those of three fingered theropod dinosaurs. Coincidence, not likely Nephilim Free. It's not exactly correct. It's a misrepresentation of the evidence evolutionists or experts are doing that. Gotcha. Want to give you a chance though, if you want to go more in depth, we'll give you the time. Well, evolutionists misrepresent all kinds of things. They say Lucy had locking knee joints, but the animal did not. More about this question though. Oh, well, it's the same thing. The fossils don't show that there's a clear transition from one type of ankle bone or wrist bone to another. They don't show that. They just show this type and then there's that type. There's no such thing as a transitional form in the fossil record. The plethora of prominent evolutionist scientists have written in their own books, expected to be written read by their own peers that transitional forms are not clearly seen in the geologic column. And that's been true all the way since Darwin, right on up through Stephen Jay Gould and Stephen Stanley and the present. So an absence of evidence for evolution is not evidence for evolution. This one coming in from Marshall. You remember him, Nephilim Free? He saved the debate. I think it was a couple of weeks ago. It says, can you ask Nephilim Free what article he's quoting about the modern birds with dinosaurs? I'd be happy to look that up and then give you the name of it. I have numerous ones, but I'd be happy to provide that for you. Give me just a couple of minutes. I can't do it in 10 seconds. Give me a minute or two. Go on with the next question. We can do that because I'm going to mention folks. We are pumped. If you have not seen it, folks, I am going to put this link into the live chat right now. In particular, we are pumped. That we have reached our original goal for the crowdfund folks and we are excited to pursue now our stretch goal. So we want you to check this out as we are absolutely pumped. Let me show you this on screen as we are thrilled. Folks, thanks so much for all of your support as we have continually grown in terms of this crowdfund strategy and we plan on using it for epic events in the future. So if you ever want to see a Richard Dawkins debate on here some day, something like that, this crowdfund strategy we really believe is the way that we're going to be able to do it. We're going to learn how it works, get better at it, get experience at it, and continue growing so that we can put on those huge headline events. And so that is linked in the chat and I'll pin it to the top of the chat. We invite you to join us as we are absolutely thrilled for this epic event, which happens tomorrow, you guys. You don't want to miss it. And so that crowdfund, in this case, you could say we're going for that stretch goal. We want to invite you. If you ever found this channel to be valuable to you, if you've ever been like, hey, yeah, that's all right. Highly encourage you to jump in on this crowdfund with us as we go for this stretch goal. We've only got $36 away and we'll be at the stretch goal. So we are pumped, folks. Only $36 away. And so with that, Neflin Free, I think you were pulling something up. I'll give you a chance to see what you'd like. Yeah. I've already been posting numerous links here and titles of papers that, you know, that people can read. This is what they need to. I could provide a lot of this stuff. I'm just copying and pasting some of my sources from the secular camp. That's gracious. Gotcha. What we can do, but did you want to screen share? No, no, thanks. Okay. So one thing, I'm going to update this right now as somebody let me know ATSGR, your link is broken. Here's the one. Right now, folks. Right there. That one I just posted and text chat is the one that was the major one that I spoke of mostly. Whole genome analysis, resolving, resolve early bird, early branches in the tree of life of modern birds. That paper there points out that numerous kinds of modern species of birds, completely modern coexistence of the dinosaurs and the cretaceous. We, thanks Cloud of Time for your super chat said just supporting. Thank you Cloud of Time for that support. It seriously does mean a lot. And then if you have any other questions, folks, I am going to, as I am looking for Atheist Junior's link. Folks, let me know if the guest links don't work. They should be working, but someone mentioned that Atheist Junior's link or Atheist, is it Atheist Junior or JR? Junior, but you could just call me AJ if you want. You got it. AJ's link should work. Let me know. Someone mentioned that it didn't and so for me it links. It's hyperlinked so that if I click on it it just brings me to the YouTube channel. And so we do want to make sure that our guest links actually work. So thanks for the heads up on that from those of you in the chat. And then with that, we do, go ahead. Like my channel link is literally just you can just type in youtube.com slash AtheistJR and it'll go right to the channel. Gotcha. It does work for me. So I'm confused. As Sideshow Nav says AtheistJR link also not working for me. 404 error. That's weird. I'll paste it in the live chat myself. Gotcha. And so we will attempt to figure out what that is but as mentioned folks tomorrow night is the big event that we've been waiting for for over a month and we are absolutely thrilled and also we have just made it above our stretch goal. So thank you so much to those who have donated to this Kickstarter or I should say Crowdfund as we are now using Indiegogo. And so thank you so much as we are pumped you guys for this event tomorrow and thank you for your support folks in every way, shape and form. Whether it be folks even just sharing the channel even clicking the like button that helps a ton. So we really do appreciate all of your support and all of the different ways in which it comes. And so I'm going to be back in just a moment with a post credit scene letting you know about upcoming juicy debates as we are pumped about the future and we hope to see you for those juicy debates in the future as well. Hit that subscribe button and one last thank you. JR and Nephilim Free has been a true pleasure to have you. Thanks James. Thank you James. My pleasure. I'll be right back in just a moment folks. Hang tight. Gears of Yoda so sorry we missed your question we've got it now. Don't worry they're both still here. Gears of Yoda thank you for your questions last minute it says what is the source Nephilim Free? What is the source of that triceratops compared to a small statue from a slide you presented? Statue source please. I think they're talking about that triceratops that had kind of like the circular plate like face. When the triceratops was a different species the source is an ancient piece of Chinese art and the actual depiction of modern evolutionists of that creature that's the evidence I mean it's what exists it's an ancient piece of Chinese art a clay figure created to depict that dinosaur the source I don't know but they would need to just look it up but if you need a specific source for every single thing then it demonstrates I think that somebody is not willing to investigate anything and they're just sitting back and expecting somebody to you know provide an overwhelming number of something in order to you know prove what they believe is wrong if that's where you're thinking then you're not being intellectual about the subject matter at all because to know whether or not you're right about something whatever it may be requires you to spend time and effort to investigate it and compare evidence if somebody is going to sit on their laurels and say I don't believe anything you say unless somebody can take me by the hand drag me over to things and show it to me and say looky looky then they're just they're determined not to believe a thing real people who are seriously believe a thing because of scientific evidence of preponderance of things that can be believed upon that observable tests were repeatable these are people who take the time to investigate on their own behalf if somebody is not willing to do that they're not interested in what's really true or not they're only just interested in defending what they want to be wait but didn't he ask did he just ask for your source I put a link to a Smithsonian article that talks about the I'm trying to just for enough was he just asking for your your source yes the source of the image I don't know the source of the image but I think I provided sources for enough of what I spoke about to give an impression that I'm right about things I can't tell you about what the source of that action Chinese depiction of that dinosaur is I don't happen to know but the truth is if somebody is willing to say that none of this art that created by man actually exists then they're really just kind of shying themselves out of the world I don't see that as a rational way to deal with scientific arguments I'm trying to remember the only thing I'm not getting is I got the first part in terms of you said that you didn't know where the source is but what was it like I can't be understanding right it's just my attention split you're not I don't think I don't want to be let me put it this way I don't want to be unheritable depiction of the depiction of a dinosaur on the wall of the Cambodian temple I know the source of the photographer who made the photograph but then there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of photographers who've made pictures of that same temple right what my thought was I was like why asking to tell you exactly who's the photographer I couldn't tell you I didn't I didn't get where just the last part I'm only curious because I'm like there must have been a link in the chain that I missed because you said something about like shutting oneself out from like something like the evidence or something like I'm like wait what well I would just say I would just say I would just say when there's such a plethora of evidence and somebody just is unwilling to investigate to find out these things unless somebody gives them a scientific source and they can go look on it click on it and see the evidence this particular evidence themselves than to think they're really being dishonest for themselves to hold to a world view requires that somebody's willing to investigate and compare evidences right if you expect somebody to bring everything to you but you're not willing to go out and investigate and find and compare yourself well but Nef I hate to interrupt but just to be fair because like to be fair like the the source of the image the source of the image I don't know the source of the image please don't interrupt so they were to be fair to that person like they weren't like they weren't saying like I won't believe you unless you give me the source I think like it was a sincere like they were just saying like hey do you know what the source is for that well the first thing I said was I don't know okay gotcha but I I don't know the source of the actual person photograph of that art I am just I'm only saying I was like they're they're like asking who maybe they're just asking because they're like hey I want to read more about it like I don't they they never said anything about like I won't believe you Neflin free unless you give me the and I said I don't know the the source of the the photograph okay gotcha I just yeah that's that part I understood but I was like wait we're but I don't know if they because they might for all we know maybe they're you know like they want to give it an honest read like I don't know what their position is but in case let me just quick reload in case any last oh I did miss a question Michael Lyons so sorry about that and then Atheist Junior if you had something that you wanted to add I didn't want to lock you out of that conversation oh yeah I'm sorry for interrupting but yeah I put it I put a link in the chat to a Smithsonian article that talks about the carving but no that's that's all I would I would say disqualifying the picture required considering the plethora of evidence that I have and I you know what little I did provide would require that somebody apply the same mental attitude towards all of it and they would have to be a person who says no that can't be true no that can't be true no that can't be true no that can't be true without investigating anything for themselves right I mean I don't deny there are people out there like that but like I said the person was just I think like they're just asking for the source so I don't think they well I said I don't know the source of that particular photograph right now for the three okay God like they weren't but the I'm just trying to explain that they they weren't saying like gotcha like it was like it was just a sincere ask that's the way well I answered it saying I don't know that yes okay gotcha sorry I don't mean to be so but anyway Topher Berth says Neff how sure are you that the clay figure and other items were not created on Etsy how could you get evidence for debate and not retain the source because I I know Etsy I own them and and I own all the corporations of the world and all the galaxies in the universe and so it can't be true gotcha this so this next one Silver Harlow let me know if I misunderstand your question I want to give you the best I want to give you a fair shake so they say a scientist a scientific paper lists all its sources and credits all its images even though it is written for other scientists who can investigate I think it's for you Neff repeat the question please they said a scientific paper lists all its sources and images even though it is written for other scientists who can investigate so I would say where's the science papers that do that that demonstrate that you know the artwork and the historical references of mankind cannot be human true human history or which discredit the numerous evolutionist scientists and university professors who admit that the fossil record does not demonstrate clear evidence of evolutionary transition for any major transition so I would say I would return it and toss it right back at them I would say you're asking for evidence for things that can't exist or don't exist and then expecting the creationist to provide evidence tangible evidence of something that's only historical evidence and the evolutionist if we examine to compare the two we find the evolutionist is relying upon assumption and the human the creationist is actually replying with what is physical and observable gotcha juicy and then oh there was one last question did I get to Michael Lyons question I also wanted to update the meter on the page so thank you so much that is updated and I'm having a hard day to get sorry guys I'm struggling today my attention is you need a tuna sandwich and a half glass of milk that's what you want did you meet your goal? we did and I am so thank you so much folks for throwing in to the crowdfund as we are we have met the stretch goal which is seriously you guys are dead serious I don't know if you guys I'm going to ask you in chat and I'll ask Nephilim Free and Atheist Junior AJR or AJ if you guys don't believe me like I'm very serious our goal is to get debates eventually you're like Richard Dawkins against I don't know maybe like who's like Jason Lyle he seems to be a popular Jordan Peterson it's not a good example of a creationist Nephilim Free insists they're a creationist so we get no Jordan no Jordan Peterson so long story short but yeah I'm serious about that as well like Jordan Peterson those kind of debates this crowdfund strategy we really do believe we're like this is we believe we're actually going to get there and host those types of debates and so thank you so much for all of your support and then looking for any last questions but thank you guys all for hanging out here for coming back for this little encore Nephilim Free and Atheist Junior it's been a true pleasure to have you tonight thank you James I believe in you James you can do it thank you appreciate that I'll be right back folks in just a moment with a post-credits scene on upcoming debates as we've got a lot of awesome upcoming debates so stick around for that thank you guys so much for all of your support I am pumped you guys so excited to just chill out with you I was so tired and it was so late that I was quickly rushing out but I do want to say thank you so much for all of your support everybody thank you so much as we strive to provide a neutral platform where everybody can make their case on a level playing field and so we as always want to let you know whether you be Christian Atheist, Creationist Evolutionist, Old Earth Creationist what is the new one I think they call evolutionary or a evolutionary evolutionist or something like the people anyway log story short no matter what you like to be called we're glad you're here we hope you feel welcome and so I do want to say thank you everybody but first it's hot you guys I'm taking this off give me a sec so first I want to say hello Bob Sadler stoked that you are with us again good to see you as well as Excellus Thibaudu thank you for coming by and Hannah Anderson thanks for being here support as always see you there in the old chat and then thank you tophor berth for being with us as well as Farron Salas thanks for coming by and then William Coase art good to see you again Dean thanks for dropping in and Laurie Hayes glad you are back thanks for your support Teemo who says the like button is there for a reason please do hit that like button folks as it does help the channel all those things it does encourage me it motivates me to put out more content and so if you like more debates than hey please do hit that like button as that encourages me that motivates me as we're excited about the future here folks and so we are doing a movement there's something special happening here it's not just great debates all thanks to the speakers by the way but it is the vision namely we want to provide a level playing field and that's the trick I've got a double check so when I think about like intelligence squared other debate channels there's like a variety of channels but we are striving to do something that no other debate channel does that I know of namely only debates nothing but debates so we don't have any videos that are like oh this is like I hope you enjoyed that fun debate now here let us show you like what the true position is on this particular issue and then we put out our own video saying that this is the right position and the other position is wrong we promise to never do that so I'm never going to pull a fast one on you or I'm going to come out and say hey folks I hope you enjoyed that debate now I'm going to make a video about how the earth is flat in your face it's not going to be anything like that folks it's always going to be fair where we let you the audience decide who made the better case and Silver Harlow thanks for your super chats I just to support the channel and the great work you do organizing all this thank you Silver seriously that really does mean a lot and seriously it means a lot because I don't know if I told you guys so I was going to teach this summer and if I did actually teach this summer I would have had less time for debates that's for sure true so we've been doing a lot of debates this last month and also organizing with the Kickstarter and stuff but also this is actually like my job for the summer which is crazy because you know when we first started I never thought that it would actually like grow as much as it has and so thank you so much for all of your support whether it be here on YouTube or Patreon or anything we just appreciate you like that I love getting to do this over the summer and I love to teach but I also I gotta be honest I'm like yeah I kind of enjoy this more I kind of am glad it worked out this way because I was hoping to teach originally in the spring and I was even reaching out to all these like different departments I was like hey you have a class that needs to be taught hey here I am and they were like sorry it's just too close to summer we've already got the slots filled and I was like hmm however I'm glad it happened that way because I can teach all the time I am so thrilled to get to do this as my like kind of like get to do this more seriously over the summer it's been so fun and so thank you guys so thank you for your support of the crowdfund icon I can't say thank you enough as this is truly a team community effort like you guys seriously we appreciate you and so I'm just a guy in the back sending emails out for real and so Louis Metin let me know if I pronounce it right we're glad you're here Louis as well as Eximusik good to have you with us and Shasta X thanks for dropping in and then Farron Stylist says James's Juicy Meter is low today oh baby we are excited you're right I have updated it and I'm pumped that we have met our stretch goal we've gotten beyond our stretch goal and I'm honestly you guys this is so huge for real like the next goal I'm telling you like we just really want to shoot for the stars because I'm like you know what we got to go for it like we've got to go for some big mainline like huge events that people are going to be like whoa that is awesome like how'd they get that to happen and then don't worry if you're looking above me Nephilim free is not really here that's just a picture of him okay and he wasn't shooting lasers out of his eye during the debate so I want to let you know that as well but we are pumped Sandy Pigeon good to see you alright alright that's not my wife that's just a picture of her okay alright so Moomin Ryder thanks for coming by as well as Crimsonair thanks for dropping in says if you ever participated in a debate yourself heck yes I have I'll show you one of my favorite debates of all time so I've had like three or four when we first started this channel and before my department learned about it I used to do like here and there I would do debates but I've only I want to show you one of my favorites which is in person and I did enjoy the ones that were on this channel but one of my favorites that was in person was with August let me see if the word August this is I always like this is my favorite of all time because this was like seven years ago now so we released it in 2020 and I'm gonna throw it in the live chat but I want to let you know that this debate I did this back in what was it March 26th of 2014 this was an in person debate I did if you want to see it so really fun if you would get a kick out of that I'll I'll tag you in the link for that Crimsonair and that was my favorite of all time but there are other ones on the channel if you search they're really old but they're like three or four different people that we debated where most of them stayed on topic but this one that I just linked is like my favorite not only because August is a friend that I just really appreciate August and then also though that it was like it was a monster crowd that night so I think the one that I just shared yeah we had an audience of like it was a good size it was like five to six hundred people live so that was a fun one and Jack our prime says how much do you deadlift James I don't deadlift anymore but back in the day when I used to take it seriously back when I so I played college football and I really you know went at it hard although I don't think my deadlift was that impressive I think it was it was good for like like compared to where I am now but compared to like college football players I think it was like 640 if I remember right was where I may be maxed yeah I think that's probably what it was and I don't think I were a belt no joke so they wouldn't let us wear a belt they said it was they wanted our core to be strengthened and so yeah everything we did but anyway I do love lifting weights still I do it for fun it's really fun and anyway I was reading some of the crazy stuff in chat but gay nomadic thanks for coming by as well as and hacked thanks for your kind words said thanks for the debate and all your hard work thank you and hacks seriously that means a lot and then I see Marshall and Mr. P thanks for dropping in cloud of time we're glad you're here and Ionic Ionian garden thank you for coming by and then give me a second I'm catching up with chat and then but yeah I love to exercise because it's great for stress that's one nice thing and then I mean that's frankly and then I just enjoy getting out of the office I'm in this office in a seemingly long amount of time honestly like all day every day is this is where I hang out and then I get to get out of the building and go work out and then something from nothing thanks for coming by as well as ooh Dr. James tour versus Professor Dave that would be juicy and then pancake of destiny how do you eat your pancakes I don't even eat I don't never eat them anymore I haven't had pancakes for a long time it's honestly I'm not joking it's probably been like six years Michael Lyon thanks for coming by says what do you teach this last spring I taught general psychology and then last summer I got to teach leadership which is really fun I enjoyed it and that was what I want to teach again this summer but like I said it was like all the slots fulfilled but that's alright like I said this is something I just love to do and so thanks H Jasper he says wish you fun take the good spirit with you James also don't neglect the weirdos they need education as well thank you for your kind words and I am the weirdest of them all and then the cine geek says don't lie James don't lie you know you are biased for we are all biased towards the one noble truth the moon is a hologram flat and made of cheese and the aliens live there well I don't know about that but I will admit and I always ask I say hey folks keep me accountable that I do have biases and it's not something so I think that sometimes people are like like I don't have any biases no I don't like I'm neutral and I'm like everybody has confirmation bias so like that's one thing and then there are other types of biases that we all have as humans but long story short the person who says that they don't have a bias is the person who is probably most susceptible to succumbing to bias because it's like well if you're not thinking that there's a potential bias there to protect against how are you going to protect it because you don't think you have it at all so that's something I want to admit is that hey I got to be careful in terms of watching my biases I know you were joking cine geek but slaying good to see you Jay Acido thanks for dropping in and then Marshall that's funny Marshall I I appreciate your sense of humor as well as you need some SWAT mock t-shirts I don't know what that is but yes tofer birth if you have any questions or thoughts let me just tag me with that modern day debate in chat I do try to keep an eye on the chat especially like after the debate it's easy for me during once the Q&A I don't know if you guys notice like once the Q&A starts it's really hard for me to keep an eye on the chat so that's why sometimes if you ask a question and sometimes I may be slow to get to it in that that's why but also Mark Thompson good to see you thanks for coming by it's just got here did the Noah's Ark debate happen tonight or did this one replace it this one had replaced it we are hoping to do the Noah's Ark debate later this month as that one just didn't happen to work out tonight but we're excited to hopefully host it in the future and then tofer birth says are there instructions somewhere on how new debaters can get on your show been considering getting into it for a while yes namely we usually ask everybody to one use their camera that's important and we let it slide tonight because Nef has been coming on the channel ever since we were little and Nef helped us grow when we had like I don't know 150 subscribers and I reached out to Nef and Nef had which to us at that time he had a whopping 6000 something and we're like hey would you be up for coming on and he was like sure James I can't do it enough for you I can't do enough for you it doesn't sound like that but he's like yeah of course I will and basically that's why we grandfathered him in so Nef doesn't have to use a camera but we do really push for it now unless this connection is getting weak in which case we'll let him turn it off but apricots lots of 640 scientifically classified superhuman that's funny thank you for your kind words it's not true but appreciate your kind words and then also but yeah so um thanks for your kind words I've shown Nef says congrats on reaching the goal thank you but does this mean no car wash well no car wash for me I mean maybe Tom jump will wash your car I don't know I mean he likes doing that stuff just for kicks beta thanks for coming by Riley I was talking about not Tom being a beta but I said beta and Riley said it Bill well good to see you this is James any debate change your mind about any topic I've changed my mind about arguments for positions but I haven't changed I don't I don't know if I've changed like on a full position um but I've certainly changed my mind on like arguments and so it's all about for me like I think it isn't like probability so like depending on how much you wait all of the different arguments for and against a position you kind of put it all into one big pot and stir it together and that gives your overall probability in terms of like what you think and so you can see my probabilities been swayed but I haven't like you you couldn't say that is like all James run from being like a glober glober through to being a flatter or flatter through to global or something like that but pancake of destiny says just kidding thank you pancake of destiny I that's right you like pancakes and heat shield says James almost said beta because he's used to it I do I'm really used to it I can't get I can't get it out of my mind and Brooks Havis says I'm excited for tomorrow I am so excited you guys if you haven't already I've got to tell you folks this debate tomorrow it's going to be unreal I am really excited about it we are thrilled to have our guests come on to the show and so I'm going to link tomorrow's debate in the chat and I'm telling you folks this is going to be epic please do be sure to hit that thumbs up on tomorrow's debate if you haven't already I just threw that into the chat and so I'm going to put it there now tomorrow's debate and then colon and then link there it is okay folks it's going to be epic you do not want to miss it tomorrow night it's live for the public so remember last time we kind of like we go back and forth we're like well should we do it so that it's like live to the public or should we do it where you have to throw in a minimum amount for the crowdfund and so long story short our goal is we're like hey this time we're going to give it a shot and see what it's like we're going to let the kind of like the public view it and so next time we might go back to it where we say like hey everybody if you throw in $3 you get to watch it and so we're excited about it though thank you for your support of the crowdfund and Resort of Horses congrats on meeting your target James your euphoria is almost post in nature fuzzy happy and meanderingly goofy well done sir thank you for your kind words and I am nobody's more meanderingly goofy than me I am excited you guys we have high hopes for the future and so yeah tomorrow's is going to be a lot of fun we are really excited about it and it's at 8pm Eastern time tomorrow so folks what are you doing tomorrow night that's what I got to ask right now what are you doing tomorrow night do you have thoughts think to yourself like what am I doing tomorrow night it's a Saturday night well if you don't have plans already you have a party to go to and it's going to be this debate between Dr. Kenny Rhodes and Matt Delahunty we are excited for it as we really do we're honestly I'm thrilled to have these guys and we really do appreciate these guys and so thank you guys again just for all of your support and um yeah but tell me in chat what's on your mind you guys have thoughts if you guys have things maybe the channel could be improved this way like let me know like that's cool if you're like hey James like if you ever like considered this like it doesn't hurt to say it because like worst case scenario is like I don't know maybe maybe it's not for us yet you know and sometimes though I've got to be honest no joke a lot of the best ideas for this channel it's like people just suggest hey it's a great idea you should do this and so I want to say thank you for that you guys it is a community effort Eric Nelson says dinner with mom and dad good for you I'm glad you are Bob Sadler says watching a debate and getting drunk we hope that is drunk off of joy and enthusiasm and excitedness for the debate is it's going to be awesome and Alan H says prepare to watch a debate yes it is fun you guys I'm pumped for it cloud of times is working and then is it pronounced let me know is it X L E P H is it how it's pronounced but thank you so much for coming by says good talk everybody got to go take care friend and then pancake destiny says I wanted to go to a party but I will watch this debate I got you okay well we are glad you're going to be at the debate and then Sandy Pigeon says James I meant mock t-shirts sorry oh I get it mock t-shirts I still don't know what that is but in hacks is more jelly wrestling James I don't know man you gotta ask Tom jump if he's going to do it again but I want to say thank you guys let me know I'm going to share quick about the upcoming debates and then I've got to run and yeah so thank you guys seriously I am really excited about the future and is left thanks for letting me know how it's okay is left so with like with Z and then Jeremy loves as James I want to debate to debate son is God that's juicy and interesting I'm maybe open to it it depends on what you mean but Bruce Wayne's has let the mods debate and chat again I don't see why it would be toxic as long as they're respectful thanks for letting me know that Bruce Wayne I want to be clear though that the actual reason that we ask mods not to debate or state their positions in chat is not because we thought it was toxic for them to do so is because we want to have like the utmost of neutrality at the channel and the moderators being representatives were like hey we want to ask the moderators to do that too by the way I want to let you know this has nothing to do with your chat like this isn't like punitive or anything we next week are going to do something where basically we are going to give an alert to all of the moderators and we are going to say hey heads up that we are going to do a purging of all the people with a wrench we're going to take everybody off the moderator list unless you let us know that you want to remain a moderator after you look at a list of like moderator responsibilities because we really appreciate Bob has done a lot of work like I'm not joking like Bob sent me documents on Google like writing this stuff out like Bob's Sideshow Bob has put in a ton of extra work and we just appreciate it and so long story short we want to we want to ask if you'd be willing to defer to Sideshow Bob trust that he's doing his best to be as neutral as possible and there are moderator meetings for example during the debate and so yeah long story short we just want to be sure that all of the moderators are on the same page because that's like we have a lot of moderators coming back and we have so many moderators some of them like come into the channel like every 10 months and they're like hey and we're like oh yeah we got some new rules and they're like what I can't debate and it's like sorry you can't we change that rule and so says he thinks that evolutionist think that since the sun is necessary for life it must be God he clarified that like an hour ago oh okay interesting I didn't say that you're saying you're saying that Jeremy loves of that I think okay but yeah so yeah we are we really we want to strive for like the like absolute radical neutrality and tolerance and so thank you guys I'm going to go I want to say thank you for everything I love you guys seriously we're excited about the future and then Bob would I miss Marshall says tell it to James long sleeve t-shirts gotta go great job tonight congrats thanks sandy pigeon for that kind words I get it okay long sleeve t-shirts now what makes sense that's a cool idea and what was the other one Bob Sadler where is your comment did you have something for me so it would certainly be there Marshall for what for the mod meetings I don't know let me know but we want to say thank you and yes we do want to say that for both guests tomorrow for both Dr. Kenny Rhodes and Matt we want to ask if 99 if you'd all be your regular friendly selves as basically we do we want to appreciate the debaters and attack the arguments instead of the debaters so a friendly reminder for that tomorrow and so thank you guys for everything we love you guys look at that meter on the far right of the screen we did it folks we're excited this is like I'm telling you you may be like oh I was like yeah it was like one cool thing but all of the experience that we have with these crowdfunding efforts and all the big main events that we're putting on because this is another it's going to be an epic one and then the last one was definitely an epic one and then you know we're going to keep doing it and like I said we want to have it so that people can vote for the next one we want these to keep getting bigger and batter and more epic and so thank you guys though we appreciate you and then want to say oh I'm so sorry I'm tired very embarrassing so thank you guys for all of your support I'm excited look at that meter thank you so much for all of your support and your love and if you want to throw into the crowdfunding you can still as we're pumped you guys that's still open for roughly seven hours I think now it's like four hours but thanks everybody keeps lifting up the reasonable from the unreasonable take care and we'll see you tomorrow night you don't want to miss it one last thing my dear friends want to say huge thanks to the moderators and also thank you to those such as Larry Letts Platium and others who have done a great job in the discord if you didn't know that modern day debate has a discord I'm going to throw that into the old chat and so I want to let you know about that as where is this there it is but yes we have a discord as well and that is a way that you might be able to get some debate experiences sometimes people ask are like hey can I come and debate and we're like hey we're willing to debate we're willing to host virtually anything we are very much about like free like people having their own free chance like we want to give everybody a fair shot to make their case we're not frankly that's the you know you can probably see like we're generally not for the de-platforming stuff and so I want to let you know if you are like hey I want to come on Monday debate one way to kind of get on here potentially is if you go to the discord that's a place you might be able to get experience and so oh I didn't know Platium resigned so well we wish Platium well and Platium has done a superb job in terms of building the discord and so that discord is in the live chat Larry Letz has put in a lot of work as well as well as math pig and so folks encourage you to join that if you are pleased by that I'm frankly still learning how to do that it's honestly it's hard for me to master every platform or even to learn every new platform but I want to say thanks everybody for all of your support keeps up to deal with the reasonable from the unreasonable take care everybody