 Good evening everybody. Welcome to modern day debate tonight We're gonna be discussing it did dinosaurs live alongside man and to get us started we have Ozy and so You have up to 10 minutes there Oz and the floor is all yours Yeah, I have a PowerPoint. I'm gonna share right there. Hopefully Yeah, I can't see anything Looks like your YouTube thing. Oh, that's my YouTube. Let me get that out of the way All right, you ready to go second. Sorry Okay, there we go. So this I'm Ozy and humans and dinos. Thank you for the show today I'm going to cover 10 parts introduction Leviathan and Job Leviathan and Psalms Behemoth and Job dragons and Isaiah dragons and revelations summary of my findings and conclusion Did humans walk beside dinosaurs? Oh also happy 4th of July or pretty darn close. It's July 2nd today Probably be July 3rd before we're done So biblical description of dinosaurs and want to analyze the texts for possible reference to these prehistoric creatures similarities between legends and fossils explore how mystical beasts may have been inspired by real Dinosaur species such as fossils. They may have discovered at the time Or were they non dinosaur species possibly dug up fossils? Who knows or were they allegorical? Modern interpretation of ancient accounts where they weren't are we looking through our modern filter our modern lens at Ancient historical narratives So introduction assumption of biblical truths I'm going to assume that the Bible was inspired by God and that's central to this debate and So is it I think that the Bible is not a science textbook It's not necessarily a history textbook is meant to lead people to leave a virtuous life I'm going to accept scientific principles are true such as Big Bang evolution some form of a biogenesis These are well accepted by a scientific community. They've been peer reviewed and that the strong Anthropic principle is true is suggest the universe is fine tuned to support life Relevant to this debate on human origins and supports of you that the earth is ancient and not young and Help support the claim that God created the universe for human life to exist um Leviathan and Job Job I keep pronouncing that wrong Passage from Job 41 134 describes a large powerful sea creature This symbolizes chaos and evil forces the genre the book of Job is poetry and wisdom with literature Providing a symbolic and metaphorical perspective That's the scholarly interpretation the passage is seen as a description of a real Prehistoric creature, not just a mythical beast. That's some interpretation of it Contending with Leviathan mankind is helpless against Leviathan God challenges Job to dry out Leviathan a monster creature with a hook or a snare his tongue with a line He questions if Joe can control Leviathan by putting a read through his nose or piercing his jaw with a hook Highlighting Joe's powerlessness the passage emphasizes that mankind cannot subdue Leviathan Making it clear that Job cannot hope to tame or control such a beat To God's point on Leviathan's might God underscores that if Job cannot overpower Leviathan He cannot hope to contend with God Leviathan is depicted as invincible and the message is that if humans cannot defeat this creature They cannot stand against the God who created it This reinforces Job's position of helplessness before God's power and wisdom And then there's a description of Leviathan Limbs powerful and graceful proportions impenetrable skin fearsome teeth and scales stazing flashes Orth light and fire and smoke emanate from his mouth and nostrils Depicting it is more than a mere crocodile potentially akin to a dragon Leviathan's might is emphasized through his invulnerability to weapons and his ability to cause fear and chaos He points Leviathan symbolizes an unstoppable force at humans including Job Cannot hope to overcome without divine assistance God uses Leviathan to demonstrate his own unmatched power and to remind Job of his limitations The description of Leviathan and Job aligns it with mythological and scriptural references to dragons receive monsters symbolizing chaos and evil The passage suggests that just as Job cannot defeat Leviathan He cannot contend with Satan without God's help Leviathan in psalms Psalms also referenced with the of Leviathan depicting it as a powerful sea creature subdued by God These passages describe the Leviathan as a mythical creature. The God has dominion over reinforces its symbolic role Leviathan is a symbolic symbol of chaos scholars interpret the Leviathan as representing God's power over the forces of chaos and evil in the world summary Sea serpents of Leviathan in psalms 74 13 to 14 the Bible speaks of God breaking the heads of sea serpents and Leviathan and Leviathan specifically talks about two heads for Leviathan not just one These creatures are often considered to be sea monsters or dragons is symbolized chaos and terror Symbols the passage highlights God's power over these formable beings Reinforcing his supremacy in creation Deliverance and creation most commentators link the breaking of sea serpents of Leviathan to the deliverance from Egypt Using poetic language to symbolize Egypt's defeat However, the psalm also contains creation motifs Suggesting that these acts could represent God's victory in the creation narrative rather than just the exodus Ancient Middle Eastern legends and ancient myth gods often fought chaotic sea creatures to establish order Biblical authors repurposed this imagery to emphasize Yahweh's unmatched power Unlike myths where gods like Marduk or ball are the heroes is Yahweh who truly conquers chaos as seen in his defeat of Leviathan Biblical references to Leviathan Leviathan appears in various scriptures as a sea serpent defeated by God These references often symbolize God's strength and victory over evil Including associates associations with Satan who is depicted as a dragon or serpent in Genesis and Revelation Transformation of mythology the Hebrew scriptures do not merely adopt Canaanite mythology They transform it to exalt Yahweh uniquely the psalmist uses Mythological language to celebrate Yahweh's victory Demonstrating his power in history and creation Psalm 74 13 to 14 conclusion underscores God's power and victory over chaos Using imagery of sea serpents in Leviathan This depiction not only reflects God's deliverance from Egypt But also celebrates God's role as a true hero in creation distinct from ancient mythologies Behemoth in Job Job Job Job Job Describes it massive land animal that symbolizes God's creative power Genre of the book of Job is poetry and wisdom literature Providing a symbolic and metaphorical perspective Scholarly Scholarly interpretation of Behemoth is possibly represents a hippodamus or elephant Demonstrating God's dominion over land animals in the land God's might versus Job's weakness Behemoth Description of Bohemoth God directs Job to observe the Bohemoth a powerful creature God made alongside humans Though Bohemoth is described with strength in his hips and stomach muscles a tale likened to a cedar tree bones like bronze beams and ribs like iron bars it feeds on grass And finds shelter under lotus trees and marshy areas Despite raging rivers it remains undisturbed and confident Interpretation God's creation the behemoth showcases God's creative power and serves as an example of his might This creature How much just one minute left? really Okay, so yeah, behemoth in Job dragons and asiah represents chaos prophetic literature is scholarly anyways You got John dragons in there in revelations too And so I just want to do my summary Um, I am actually an atheist. I value myself the weak anthropic principle. I don't think we necessarily exist This debate though isn't about atheism or disproving God. I aim to show that belief in evolution aligns with christianity As nearly all mainstream christian groups accept human evolution An ancient earth. I challenge any anyone to prove otherwise. It looks like t rock is Not there, but anyways i'm done No worries. Uh, yeah t rock if you want to turn your camera back on and we will go back to our main screen So thank you so much ozian for your introductory statement there All in the uh screen share there. Oh, we got a new Hmm zoom has updated. So you'll have to bear with us for a second. Well, we all struggle to find the right thing Hmm, do you see where to stop the screen share? Ah, there it is There we go Don't blame us. We're just a couple of fellas just trying to mess around with some technology here that just updated So it looks a little different. So yes, welcome everybody to modern day debate. We hope you feel welcome here Let's see. I'm just gonna ask t rock to come on video because it is going to be t rocks turn here in just one second And there he is. So uh, yeah once again, just want to remind everybody we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science politics religion We do hope that you feel welcome here at the channel Please like and subscribe if you want to boost us up in the algorithm and get this conversation rocking in the algorithm We also do a q&a at the end of our show So keep an eye out for that and if you have questions for either of our speakers You can get it in now and it'll be asked nice and early for the q&a All right with all the housekeeping out of the way t rock you have 10 minutes on the floor Okay, thank you quick audio check. Am I good? Yeah, you are good Uh video seemed to be smooth enough. Yeah. Yeah, your lips are moving with your words. Everything's good Okay, good. My my controls are a little bit lagging on their response. So I apologize if I have any Glitches here, but I'm going to share my screen The short thing once that gets up we will start the timer for you And oh not quite yet just one second There we go. We got it now. All right, you're up and running. So you get 10 minutes on the floor and I'll start your timer right now Okay, um, I take it my title page is showing well here Dinosaurs lived with people art and history Um So we've got basically two two directions that we can demonstrate this through the biblical text as Ozean demonstrated a little while ago and then extra biblical art and text to both also support this idea very strongly So I'm going to start out. Um, I'm not going to put a huge amount of emphasis on on the biblical text Um, Ozean kind of covered a lot of that except he didn't really take us to the exact wording That's relevant here. Um, I'm not going to regard Um, Leviathan at the moment. Um, I kind of leave that out. Technically you wouldn't consider Leviathan a dinosaur behemoth you would though Some of the key things that he says here is um in Job chapter 40. He Edith grass as an ox Um, you can see the bold text here that I have he moved with his tail like a cedar Um, so Eating grass like an ox excludes things like alligators that some people presume that uh, Job chapter 40 is talking about um Verse 17 there you move with his tail like a cedar um precludes uh elephants and rhinos and that sort of thing. They don't have tails remotely like a cedar tree Is the uh the implication of the text here his bones are strong pieces of brass his bones are like bars of iron Behold he drank it up a river and hasteth not he trusted that he can draw Jordan into his mouth um Job is described as a as a As a very powerful creature one of the pieces of text here that I did not highlight is uh, the very first verse Shown here verse 15 behold now behemoth with which I made with the that's kind of the key is that All the land animals and people were made on day six of creation on the same day. So they existed side by side since their Initial existence on the planet okay, so What you're seeing here is There are seven differences of either lizard or dinosaur. These are not all dinosaur But the ones that are lizard tend to be kind of permean age And these are attested to in extant art That is art depictions and and even written text the separate from the bible so If you take a glance at these to be honest with you most people aren't going to recognize any of these names or very few of them The body forms you can sort of identify with some Depictions that you'll see in science textbooks and and other literature that addresses dinosaurs and ancient other forms of reptiles Um, I won't go through a name all of these but you can tell some of these definitely are dinosaurs and some are strictly just lizards But they are presumed extinct since the permean era okay So quick note on this this These come from a specific book called dire dragons by a man named vance nelson The original publication was 2011 this particular Rendering here is in a creation dot com article written by brian thomas Discussing dire dragons by vance nelson. So that's just kind of a kind of a starting point to look at You know resources that you can follow up on to to see the actual extant biblical history here The focus of vance nelson's dire dragons is that it's authentic ancient work It's not modern knockoffs of any kind. Um, they're validated through standard scientific investigation journals that sort of thing So these are 100 authenticated in the secular literature The clarity of identity of dinosaurs and extinct permean reptiles at the genus level So this word clarity here is kind of an important concept in vance nelson's book because They have to be positively tied to Scientifically known tax on at the genus level in order to be included in his book So in other words, he's excluding all of the the sort of iffy things that have limited amount of documentation or validation behind them he's he's getting rid of all of the how do you say the The hyped up stuff that's just been kind of kind of um, you know Um Kind of mythicized in in some literatures He's getting rid of all that stuff and focusing only on what can actually be validated and actually compared directly To and match with the fossil record. So that's an important aspect of that particular resource for an investigation. So Extant dinosaur dragon art covers a a broad variety of things some I don't have everything mentioned here This is just a small sample set. Uh, but they're they're depicted in mesopotamian cylinder seals They're at the template anchor cambodia, which is famous for its stegosaur depiction bishop bells tomb which has What looks like a sauropod type dinosaurs? the royal chateau of I don't want to mispronounce that but blah france Hongxing culture, china the china turquoise dragon. It's a figurine St. George and the dragon most people have heard of there are a number of versions of that particular Story out there in the open literature and then There's this uh, tannistrofius in Belogna, Italy That is uh, arguably one of the most convincing pieces of supposedly extinct reptile or dinosaur that's out there. So Some resources for investigation I'm tempted to click on these because there's some really good graphics behind them I'll come back to this in just a minute, but These are some of the websites that you can pick up on they are creation websites for sure, but they are tied directly to secular mainstream kind of literature that anybody can validate outside of creation type resources So I guess I guess I'm going to jump into this and show a couple of these at least See if this will come up on my screen Ryan can you tell can you tell me if my It's not yet. I'll pause the timer just for now If it's opening on another screen, you may have to pull it over if we're I may have stopped sharing and uh reshare different A different deal here, but no worries. This gives everybody a another extra chance to smack the like button So thank you everybody for coming and hanging out for the debate while we get everything up and running You still have four minutes and 10 seconds on the floor there t rock to uh, Finish up your intro doctory statement and then we will move into open discussion as per your usual. So, uh, Whenever you're ready there t rock All right Okay, I'm ready to share screen again No worries whenever you're ready. We'll pop it up Uh, like I said, everybody zoom just updated on us and they changed the outlay on it. So, uh, It's acting. It's a little different. So we're just feeling it out right now I wish we would have known before but uh zoom loves doing this All right, so I'll reset your timer once that pops up There we go. That's working now. So four minutes and 10 seconds on the floor and it's back to you t rock Okay, thank you. Um, I'm showing this one just because it's a good shotgun view of several different things this This is a But it it's pointing you to actual like this mainstream Sources that you can investigate external to creation Type websites if you have an aversion to that sort of thing, but anyway, um looking here I don't know if they're going to give me the ability to zoom this very much So I can't really zoom in a whole lot, but I'll highlight this real quick this first to the left top pane here is a glimpse at the Stegosaur depiction at the anchor watt in cambodia Over here to the other side Let's see here Here you have a quick view of a mesopotamian cylinder seal that shows the long neck dragon headed sauropod type dinosaurs Noting that their their legs are underneath them like dinosaurs are This one to the to the right of it the royal chateau of bluff france Has a number of depictions Open corner of an amazing tapestry from 15 from the 1500s shows a dragon, which looks like a juvenile hadrosaur such as P. Blasaurum, I think is how that's pronounced. It's a reconstruction above to the right similarities include the large hind legs the nose holes the pattern on the skin the lower jaw shape and the ear location Key features key identifying features like that are a big part of the vance nelson work Making positive connections between historic art and the fossil record there. So Here you have the book of ours from The netherlands as a picture st. George fighting a dragon. They were likely familiar with at that time Note the size and shape of the dragon compared to the horse reconstructions of triassic fossils I'm not sure how to pronounce that colophysis Bowery are similar to this depiction We've got a deal here To the right of that mary schweitzer's soft tissue findings Definitely endorses the idea of very recent living dinosaurs And so down here to the bottom of this particular page turquoise dragon This is from the the chinese depicted many different kinds of dragons Remarkably their appearance is similar to various dinosaur reconstructions to turquoise dragon is different from animals live today with Curious ability to single Affinities with the single horned centrosaur so So anyway, that's uh, I'll wrap it up. I know the time is Going down It'll give us kind of a backdrop to continue the conversation. So I'll hand it back No worries. No worries. All right. Well, thank you so much t rock for your introductory statement there So we will end the screen share just for where I do like to hand the ball back over to the other speaker To respond to some of what they just heard and have an opportunity to share as well And then yeah, we can bounce the ball how we feel So I'm going to fix up the screens a little bit here guys once again But uh, you know if if you didn't know all of these debates are going to be updated to our podcast form within 24 hours I'll just do my quick little housekeeping here. We'll get right to it So yeah, if you're hanging out in the podcast forum Make sure that you do subscribe to the modern day debate youtube channel So you don't miss out on these events live, uh, which does give you an opportunity to engage with The speaker of your choice. You got a second Aussie and you're gonna step out you say I gotta take my meds really quick. Okay. No worries I guess I'll just keep the broom in my hands for a second and Just let everybody know both of our speakers are going to be tagged in the link in the description So if you like what you're hearing from either of our speaker, you can check out more of them by looking at the links there If you also are looking to upgrade maybe sharpen up your debate chops But you don't want to come out here and show your face right away You can check out our modern day debate discord. We have all kinds of chat rooms that you can jump into that You like I say you can sharpen up your debate skills And there's a diverse array of topics in there that you can get into that We generally do discuss on modern day debate and some that we don't So there's some unique ones in there We'll just give us a second to get back here and that's uh That's operated by our lovely mods Hannah Anderson in the chat there and anathema So, uh, yeah, definitely check out the discord as they put a lot of work into that and we do appreciate all the uh All of what you guys do and also, uh, see max xd is hanging out max in the chat So, uh, yeah, we'll have to get you on for another debate here soon max and once again Thank you everybody for your moderated work. Look at that. Perfect. You just got back reading time So uh, Oz I'll give you a chance to respond to some of what you just heard and then we'll uh, like I said We can kick back however you like Yeah, my house was yelling at me to take my meds. So I didn't forget so I figured You guys weren't as important as me taking my meds, but uh um So I saw the best evidence. Well, I'd like to talk about behemoth Really quick. So it says like bones of bronze And um, what was the other claim like there's and something of iron, right and like not Bars, you know What's that bars of iron bars of irons and like those are met obviously metaphors, right because Bone they're not made like that like they're sort of seeing they're strong Right Correct. Oh, yeah, so And then like, uh It's talking about a tail like a no tree, right? So it's just a cedar tree. Thank you. I am an atheist. I I just be clear But I'm just I just I don't want to argue that about god. We're just going to grant god's true. The bible is true Uh, we're just going to argue it are these metaphors Or are they real? That's all I want to argue about debate. Um, so So a lot of the scholarship about behemoth is If is it a hippopotamus an elephant or some other type of land mammal That could have existed and gone extinct. Um Around that period of time is what I read not not a Like a sea serpent or dragon or something like that, but um um Leviathan was some type of A lot most of the scholarship thinks is some type of metaphorical thing, but um, so Could it just have been a hippopotamus? What why do you think it has to be? like some type of um Dragon and I saw some of these pictures you showed me And I I see like some of them Like we have artistic representations of these Dinosaurs and that's all they are like we don't have any idea what colors they were what they looked like um, they're all like artistic rendering of dinosaurs based upon guesses So you have any backup for a minute to address the hippo Yeah, let's go to the let's go to that. I just want to talk about those two things because those seem to be your Yeah, so per the comments I made in my presentation The hippo thing does not work with the idea of a tail that moves like a cedar The the cedar is important because cedars were used for um for very large construction efforts in ancient times and so they In the bible you'll hear references to the cedars of lebanon Solomon had particular experience with those cedars And of course he built his temple at the time, but anyway That that's it. It can't be a hippo hippos have a tail more like a a little flap It looks nothing like a cedar tree Yeah, I've seen hippo. Well, I've seen hippos in zoos and same thing with um elephants. They don't have large They got more of a ropey tail. Yeah, and that's like the biggest complaint of Of Those what about the note like the trunk maybe the they were describing the trunk of the Elephant the trunk Yeah, I'm not sure which verse you're referring to but there's nothing really in there that talks about the trunk of the elephant He's talking about the tail But it's also job, right and and a lot of job is Him telling stories to other people, right? It's not Not stories. What do you mean by stories? Like what's the genre of the book of job? Is it all like You think it's all actual um science like Actually happened That's an interesting question because the the genre you you pointed out that the genre is typically considered wisdom and what's the other Psalms is considered like, uh, let's look at the genre job It was on your presentation. You called it wisdom and something I think that was um I wrote this thing like today And I didn't I didn't it fair enough But I I will tell you very very plainly that that job is wisdom, but it's also history and so um There is a distinct historical context to job and wisdom and knowledge Wisdom and knowledge. Okay. So when you say science, there is an incredible amount of science in the book of job Most people don't really read much of the details very closely, but Job literally mentions 14 different forms of water as it appears on the earth all of which are necessary for life Job mentions the balancing of the clouds he mentions the Springs in the bottom of the sea that were not discovered until the early 1900s if i'm remembering correctly Um freshwater springs at that and there are freshwater springs in the in the bottoms of the Of the oceans. Um, job. Yeah with some literature So it's it's real real stuff that you can put your hands on Well, that I would I just want to say it's like philosophical literature. A lot of times can have some truth to it Like and a lot of times it could be by happenstance. Like it it's like it's called epistemic luck Where you could like Look at the nature of the world And you could see okay springs come up here Like just just take freshwater springs. You see freshwater springs come up here Different types of springs come up here. Why wouldn't freshwater springs? Come up under the ocean too. So he could have just said Looked at the nature of the world and come up to conclusions through epistemic luck And epistemic luck is like he was true Even though he didn't actually verify the fact that it was true um, so he he wasn't justified through the the correct reasoning he just reached the correct conclusion through um Different reasoning. So we would call that Epistemic luck. Maybe it was good reason. I'm not sure I'd have to we're not in his head We don't know how he reached those conclusions if it was god that told him then of course He would have justification for For the claim, right? But then so let's let's get back to the kind of science side of this discussion for a minute personally I'm not into the philosophical stuff because I can say it the other way too because You can also have very literal history with very colorful language. That's describing it. You can have it both ways so to to try and Or allude to the idea that you have to default to some sort of of um, what's the word i'm looking for I think philosophy leads you to truth. So I don't reject the philosophy anyway The fact that you have some metaphor in there does not at all detract from the idea that it's still a literal historical account Because you can have either way you can have literal history with metaphor The car was going was flying by right? It's there's literally a car. It was literally going by You're just using some strong language to enforce an idea, right? but we do but we need to historical analysis though of metaphorical history you you see the the Line that says the car was flying by So you have to understand what they meant at the time by car And you have to understand what they meant by the term flying by do they actually mean like Wings did they actually mean it was just going faster than They expected it to be so you have to do some interpretation Of what they meant by those phrases car flying by So it's important to understand the genre of the text so you can do proper literary analysis So when you are doing historical analysis of some type of text You have to understand the genre of the text and you have to understand the words are being used and not All text is meant to be historical claims and I and as far as I understood Job is telling some of these things job is doing Is him telling thoughtful stories To his friends is like wisdom like this is how you should approach and handle the world around you not necessarily telling them this is a um historical claim. This is a science claim. This is just a way Of thinking about the world. This is a way to handle these situations. It's not just um So so let's look let's look at a few key details pertaining to dinosaurs in particular in in that particular account One of the very first descriptors that's given is that he edith grass as an ox Well, what does that mean scientifically back up? a few decades ago and scientists thought that grass did not exist at the time of sauropod dinosaurs um Lo and behold here. We have a text that is literally about I want to say about 3 000 years old or so 2500 years old that has it's been recorded that way since it was first written Um behemoth eight grass like as an ox Well, what happened in the modern scientific era? somebody messed around and discovered grass in coprolites of Dinosaurs and then they had to revise their ideas about when grass and When grass evolved as it relates to dinosaurs. So jobe was right from the beginning And science had to catch up to that now. That's not true though. You're concluding that behemoths are dinosaurs So you haven't justified that conclusion and you're concluding that that um the earth is young And you haven't justified that conclusion To conclude that jobe was right I don't have to go back through that entire line of reasoning to show that what jobe is describing here does not fit any modern animal None. Well, you you haven't justified that he's actually describing a real animal That exists because a lot of people would say that jobe isn't necessarily actually describing a real animal That exists. Well, you're you're making what you would probably call an epistemic mistake here This is not jobe himself describing it. This is this is god talking to jobe Now the point there is when you do a historical analysis It makes no sense for god to describe something to jobe that he's not familiar with He has to talk to him in terms that jobe personally identifies with so he says behold in other words look and see Because jobe can look and see and then he goes on and describes this animal that doesn't fit any modern animal whatsoever But it actually does very well fit what we know about swear Reply dinosaurs. He's describing an animal that doesn't that's never existed There's never been an animal that existed with bones that are as strong as bronze never They're never existed. There's what back up a second there because that's actually one of the more important points here That particular phrase actually I pulled it up a little while ago But I think it says his bones are as bars of iron Are bars of bars of bronze, however it says but anyway the point is The point is is that um Some of the bones particularly I think in the rib cage are and I may be wrong about that Specifically which bones but there are bones in sauropod dinosaurs that are solid solid bone As opposed to what you would call pneumatized bones that have hollows through them In what dinosaurs? In certain some types of dinosaurs have pneumatized bones where they're hollow well How do you know what dinosaurs he's talking about because they have to be a specific dinosaur? That looks just like this one you're talking about And we are we are assuming that it's a sauropod Okay, one of the larger one of the larger sauropods. How do you know how big it is? Because he tells you that the sauropod is doing a couple things that like elephants can't do He's he's drinking He's he's drinking up the river jordan. He takes it up in his mouth like it's nothing He's not worried about being washed downstream by a raging river and water No, elephants could could reasonably stand at about six or eight feet deep of water without But but if it starts flowing very fast an elephant would not be able to stand like I've been to the jordan river The jordan river is not that big of a river river Did you where you got to jordan three thousand years ago? It hasn't always were you saying right? No, but it's how do you know? Because history tells that those rivers have changed depths considerably over time Well, then show the history that has changed depths considerably considerably Okay, so it says the bones are as strong as pieces of brass His bones are like bars of iron Right, that's what it says his bones are as strong as pieces of brass His bones are like bars of iron bones aren't like that Bones are harder than concrete Like human bones are harder than concrete Okay it's so Well, so concrete concrete can be very brittle actually so I don't I don't know it depends on how you make the concrete Concrete can be different densities Okay, that's how you already are already in the concrete. No, that doesn't mean anything anyways Um, it has to mean something that these bones are very very strong And you don't have a tool in in joe's era you do not have a tool that's able to deal with an animal of his size and strength and um continuity Yeah, so so how but you said he could look at the animal So he's not looking at the animal is seeing that the bones are like iron He's not looking at the animal to see that the the bones are strong as pieces of brass So god's describing an animal that job can't physically see the bones of To know that these animals like this So he is using allegory to describe an animal. This is why I went there in the first place So god is using allegory to describe an animal about things that job doesn't have access to All right, we gotta know that's that's actually I was gonna say we gotta give t rock a chance to respond because I do know Trying to say something else there and we kind of side tangent. So, uh, we'll try to uh, let you speak for a second there Okay, so one of the important points to to mention there is if you read the entirety of the passage Jobe is not just stuck trying to use x-ray vision on a live dinosaur If you read the entirety of the passage what he's doing is um relaying to jobe the human experience with this Um with this behemoth and the human experience is that people can't tame it. They can't capture it They can't best it with their weapons. They can't build snares and traps for it They have no practical way of dealing with it. And that's the human experience that jobe would be familiar with furthermore You're also kind of kind of assuming that there's never been a dead version of this dinosaur that that people of his time Would have dismantled and and inspected the bones or turned them into tools or done anything else with Jobe's almost certainly if he saw a live when he saw a dead one and would probably know very well about it's anatomy How like if humans why couldn't humans have killed them? I understand Like humans could kill seropods I i'm not sure he's altogether saying humans can't kill in an absolute sense what he's describing is his people approaching with a spear or a lance or a sword and As as an individual or even a couple individuals. That's very ineffective. Now. Could they build machines possibly? I don't know An elephant would be the same way a hippopotamus is the same way hippopotamus we kill a soul human like you can't just approach a hippopotamus and survive Sure you can You can literally kill a hippopotamus or an elephant They have very weak sides and you can run them through its spear Hippopotamus is kill more humans for hippo than any other Land creature. I think than any other land creature Imagine if you had an actual seropod dinosaur. I'll uh, you know Jurassic Park. I don't know Imagine what it would be capable of no idea A hippopotamus would no idea what their behavior was because they've never existed While humans have existed That's funny because the evolution story tries to project behaviors on many of the uh, that's what that's what Jurassic Park That's what Jurassic Park is about. They've got uh, the the uh, the roster raptor Exactly, but but that is a literal scientific attempt in the literature to try and project them as being pack hunters Or or you know having this type of social behavior and so on and so forth They literally try to project that based on how they find the these bones in these um dig sites Yeah, so they try to project what they will do, but that's that's like hypotheses based of what they think they might do We don't have like scientific theories of what they would do. We don't know what they would do I would agree 100 percent. I would agree. I agree with that 100 percent But but I would really like to focus on the extent history for a minute because there's so much of it And um, they are so well, they are so well depicted Renderings of actual fossil finds that down to the skin texture in some cases and very key features But one of the one of the key takeaways from all of the historic Say yeah Well, we have no skin. We have no skin. We have no That's actually not true. We've got we have skin. We've got some skin imprints and some things for for example Duck bill dinosaurs had your source. There have been some skin imprints found of those and there have there have been There's actually what they what they call a mummified Ankylosaur founded in Canada So we do have very good ideas what their skin texture was like Um, a lot of dinosaurs. Well, yeah, what there's no skin tissue that's been left behind But there we found skin tissue of humans. Why have no dinosaurs? Well, they're they're typically fossilized under different conditions, but we actually do have um, beta carotene that shows some of the coloring of some of the ancient of some fossilized birds and dinosaurs both there's beta beta carotene Soft tissue finds that actually do indicate that we can sort of tell what the color may have been So we've we found the oldest completely reconstructed human genome is 45 000 years old Why why can't we find dinosaurs? Well, again, they're they're fossilized under very different conditions when you find human fossils You're typically finding burial sites not always But you you're frequently finding burial sites, which is a very different thing than being swept down Basically, it's floodwater runoff that channelizes into mud flows and and they're The one thing we we absolutely do know about dinosaur fossils is that they are typically highly Disarticulated, which means that they are transported to their present day location And they have already been highly degradated before they've been finally deposited where we find them So it's it's a very different type of fossilization process The oldest domesticated dog is 10,150 years old You're assuming evolution to be true and I'm assuming it to be Completely not true and not possible. Yeah, but we got the we got dogs We got humans Okay, we don't have dinosaurs They went extinct So When I mean Yeah, no, that's a great place. That's a good seriously. Let's let's back up and review real quick because this is typically the main um Contending that the evolutionists would have about this whole conversation is that dinosaurs supposedly went extinct when 65 million years ago or 66 I think is the technically current number, but anyway um Why do they think that do you know why? Uh, there's three different reasons. I have notes somewhere. I'm not I don't understand evolution I have three books in the other room No, that's fine. That's fine. Basic history the basic history of dinosaurs. We have radiometric dating. Oh, oh, yeah Asteroid hit the earth or whatever the asteroid effect is what they said is what they can say Volcanic rush corruption. So it's like I have all the extinction events There's like five major extinction events that have happened. I have a whole bunch of I have 87 pages in notes I can't get my printer to print up sure I understand but I just want to recap because this is common knowledge among, you know informed evolutionists They would say 66 million years ago the dinosaurs went extinct And we know this because of this iridium layer that was laid down from an asteroid effect Um, and and so the the problem that I have is is a scientific logical problem with that And that is when we look at what they call living living fossils you familiar with that Yeah, I've heard people talking about but um How can it be a scientific scientific logical problem is either a logical problem Or or not like it science says that the best science we have Has shown it and if it's a logical problem, I'd like to hear the argument, but um, yeah, let me let me explain that really quick It's really simple So if you take something a living fossil like the stela can't there's is a super common well known example The first stela can't fossils were found to to be allegedly 300 million years old They well predate the age of dinosaurs, right? Okay for a very long time Modern scientists said the stela can't was extinct Well fast forward a little bit and they discovered a stela can't fossil At 60 million years. So now you've got a 240 million year gap with no stela can't fossils, right? I'm taking your word that this is true Okay, fine. That's fine. I'm telling you stuff that you verify Through evolution sources, whatever. But anyway, so so you got 300 million year stela can't then you got a 60 million year stela can't And nothing in between. So you got a 240 million year hiatus okay Modern scientists said stela can't is extinct. It's a fish. It's in the ocean Then they discovered one in the 20th century off the coast of africa somewhere Madagascar. I think I'm not sure but Anyway, they discovered one live. So now you have a 60 million year hiatus, but they're alive today They were thought to be extinct Um, so what does that tell you that tells you logically that there's a problem with associating Disappearance of fossils from the fossil record with extinction The fact that they disappeared from the fossil record is irrelevant whether they're extinct or not And so to put a finer point on it. There is the the infamous case of the wallamy pine. It's a tree It's stuck in place. It can't move and they thought it was extinct for a very long time until Until relatively recently a few decades ago. I think they somebody discovered one and said, oh wait They really didn't go extinct, you know 100 million years ago or whatever Whatever, I don't know the timeline on that one. But the point is is that you cannot associate extinction with the fossil record And the absence of fossils. It's a logical error Yeah, the coli can't or your whatever silly can't silly So I guess we rediscovered them in 1938 goes to south africa Yeah, so, um, so misconceptions about extinction How highlights how the fossil record can sometimes be incomplete or misleading the absence of fossils from particular period It's not necessarily mean as species when extinct It may simply mean that fossils have not yet been found or that the species lived environments For fossilizations were unlikely. So that also, how do we know it's the same species either? It's irrelevant to me. It's irrelevant and seem to have disappeared around 66 million years ago No fossils of sealish ants have been found from more recent geological periods Okay Well, they could have like been in different environments too, right? You could find them in like certain environments And then they maybe they evolved to work in other environments where they're similar But unless you can do genetic testing and find out they were actually the same species Where they adapted to a new environment and they didn't look in those new environments I don't know. I'd have to know more about that specific Species to know why they could have moved to another region and they just didn't look there for adaptations for different species Other than that like cool. So it's lived for 440 million 410 million years And like, you know, like with evolution some species doesn't have to go extinct for It's a brand other species to branch off from it too, right? That's part of evolutionary theory, but it could go extinct But that's what I'm reading about it Well, one of the things I always want to highlight here is that for an evolutionist, why would you Why would you have issue with dinosaurs Being alive with humans in in the distant past that we can't access directly anymore because the only reason I'm saying that is because because If you want to be technically correct evolution could be true And people could be live could have lived alongside dinosaurs. Maybe they just didn't go extinct when you think they did Just the evidence so there's no fossil record evidence of dinosaurs Existing at the same time period of humans. So we didn't wait. Didn't we didn't we just discuss that logical fallacy You cannot You cannot infer extinction based on lack of fossils It's meaningless. Um, I can't reject. So this is like a black swan fallacy, right? I shouldn't believe that black swans don't exist um, because we have no evidence that That black swans don't exist. I I reject that like I I can Accept to claim that black swans don't exist until you show me evidence that blocks ones Okay, and that's where I've been trying to steer us towards these extant historical accounts where we have essentially well constructed Art depictions of dinosaurs that are anatomically correct. What what is actually significant about that? Is kind of what I alluded to earlier? Most dinosaur fossils are highly disarticulated and it takes years Of digging and meticulous excavation being very careful and then reconstruction and sometimes a lot of times Reconstructions are not actually done from a single specimen. Um, that's found in a single location They're done from multiple specimens across multiple locations And you have to put that much information to get anatomically correct assembled dinosaur But the historical findings they didn't seem to have any problem Whipping out carvings and drawings and and verbal text descriptions that are anatomically in And factually correct about them. Well, I don't know what you say anatomically. I mean just because they might have uncovered fossils of some dinosaurs and put them together or the might have because I'm sorry. That's just that's just kind of funny because of how much effort modern scientists have to put into doing that Basically, what you're saying is that, you know, 500 years ago People had the same amount of time and attention span to just dig up bones and try and put them together and figure it out And then poof will make carvings of it, but we won't tell anybody how we put these bones together That's kind of I was going to continue on it could have been that or they could have looked at Because dinosaurs are not that too much different from other species of animals um that exist on earth that they couldn't have combined the characteristics of existing animals on earth to make other animals To to make depictions of other animals. Um We do that in art all the time, you know, we see Images it's like people will claim like there's no new things in art that people just take Existing concepts and art and just recombine them and new things like there's no new music people only take existing concepts in music and recombine Ryan would know what I'm talking about in this Like they take existing tones and music and just recombine them to make something new That sounds unique, but it's really just a recombination of existing things and so You could just see that's what it is. It's just artwork that's been recombined and like I question some of the providence of some of those archaeological findings That you showed there on the screen. I would have to do More investigation of some of those claims like I know like the dragon for Oh, David and the dragon thing the no the it's not that one One where he's stabbing the dragon with his sword Like I looked at that before like we've had concepts. Yeah, st. George. Thank you St. George and the dragon like we've had concepts of dragons all throughout the world, right? These like long sinuous like snake like Dragons, so it's sort of like this concept of the flying Dragon that's going to leap out and attack you and and or the serpent and you look at like Like even in the in the old testament in the garden This snake and the serpent and stuff we considered evil creepy crawly things Are considered evil because those are dangerous things to humans sort of like a meme Like we avoid things like that. So there's other reasons to believe That humans would have created stories and narratives around those things To scare us to avoid those type of things then just to believe That they actually existed as real things And so I just don't know Let me ask you this. Have you read any of Marco Polo's accounts? um, I No, the all I I remember there's a story of Marco Polo going to some Um, but like bizarre thing and there was like something in the water there and but It to me it sounds more like it was like a some type of serpent in the water If I remember right so sort of yeah, what he's describing is is what people of of ancient times for sure They they did call them dragons It's what you might would reasonably call a dragon today And it's what for sure like the chinese are are real big on using that term in both history and art and literature But so his his journey was to asia somewhere I don't remember exactly where but he went to asia and he notes these These serpentine type creatures that have two small front legs With three claws on them now some critics have said oh, he's describing a crocodile, but crocodiles don't have three claws they have five But anyway, these are 50 feet long some of them. Yeah, I want to show you some images. Um Let me see if I can share my screen here Or this Marco Polo actually tells you why they're extinct Um, can you see my screen? I I'm not sharing my screens, right? So there there are images Yeah, yeah, there's eels and stuff like that in some of these And then a lot of these are from the asian Um pacific and stuff like that and they look Like Like this one in particular looks a lot like the asian dragons, you know Doesn't look 50 foot long though. It doesn't look 54. I don't know how long it is. You'd have to look but Um, but you know people exaggerate is the old fish tail. So we'd have to look to see exactly What and they over fish, right? They would go hunt and fish these things since a lot of creatures go extinct When they get over Marco Marco Polo actually tells you specifically that's what they did They had a problem with these With these serpent dragons and they would basically what he says is they would bury spikes in the sand Because these these dragons would drag on the ground and they would leave deep imprints due to their mass But they would leave deep imprints and they would follow the same trails frequently because What they were doing was feeding during the day and then going off into the waters at night To cool and rehydrate or whatever But um, they would bury spikes in the sand to cover it up and then when the dragons went across them It would impale them and kill them very effectively. So he's basically telling you how it is that those particular creatures went extinct Yeah, I I've heard like people describe them as like I walking crocodiles or I I remember reading about them in the past. Um, but like you could call them dragons But they're not fire breathing. They there's nothing there were no stories like they're breathing fire like there's no mechanism For anything like that. But yeah, I mean they'd be scary if some giant lizard is well You know, you you got to you got to look this up if you're really prone to do this type of research and follow Up on these conversations like this You need to look this up because one of the things that they drive and I don't remember if it's Marco Polo specifically But they called them elephant killers. They would basically Envelop an elephant similar to what I gather similar to like a Boa constrictor would do with with smaller prey than an elephant But these are so big they could do it to an elephant But but essentially what they what he says is that they would kill the elephants drink their blood because their blood is unusually cool And and then they would just disappear and leave the the elephant karmas is there And and this is my historic observation. It's very matter of fact that he's not, you know You can read ancient literature until when people are kind of spicing up the literature to make it interesting to read Um, that very common practice in greek literature and other other ancient forms, but um such as his bones are as strong Are as strong pieces of brass his bones are like bars of iron That's just spice it up a bit And give you a literal context that you don't want to get hit by one of those bones Yeah, yeah, right. It's just spice it up a bit spice it up. Make it make it. We're fun But uh, yeah, yeah, yeah, but that doesn't mean it's a dinosaur, right because a dinosaur has a specific taxonomy like um Like our our our crocodiles dinosaurs No, like You know this, right? You know the dinosaur, you know, I know Sure, but Our chickens dinosaurs No Yeah, I mean people will call chicken dinosaurs because they They evolved from flying dinosaur dinosaurs, but I don't know not from flying not from flying from therabod dinosaurs Yeah, therabod But I mean If you if you can positively identify some other animal Then by all means too. So that that you think behemoth is referring to You name an animal you think it could be it could be a type of elephant It could be a type of dinosaur It could be a type of hippopotamus with a with a large tail that wouldn't think So let's look at the type of tail a hippopotamus has Yeah, it's a little flap Well, you look that up. I will let everybody know currently we don't have any super chats So if you do have questions for either of our speakers super chats do get read with prior read with priority I will pull some questions out of the live chat But just a quick reminder to everybody that we will move into super chats Eventually, but right now it seems these guys are having a healthy stew So we're going to let them cook for a bit longer and uh, yeah, whenever you're ready. Uh, Oz I'll help you get that up I'm trying to look at where they could be if you evolved from I don't see any like evolutionary thing for the hippo tail But it oh wait, it looks like there was a Adaptation for the tail maybe Um where it was bigger at one point Uh here Here, let me show this So, I don't know let's see. Um Am I sharing? I don't know There very sure All right, here we go. You're ready now. Everyone can see it. I don't know how true this is But this looks like a sea creature becoming a land creature That's the idea they would like to portray. Yeah, well, maybe there were two different types of hippos one with a bigger tail one with a smaller tail Um, so maybe it was a kind like so, um, but one they killed them all off I don't know But but it doesn't mean it's a dinosaur like so we we don't show any fossil records Of dinosaurs existing with man. It doesn't mean It wasn't a type of animal that existed or not and it could just be allegory It could just be gods tell him a story. There's these there's these creatures Like leviathan that exist on land They and you notice there's a lot of stories in the bible That talk about stuff that's in the water That's sort of his water is considered sort of scary chaotic um, that's unknown And um, there's a lot allegories Related to water like satan comes out of the water In revelations. So you look at all these depictions related to the the waters And and if you look at like the new world won't have these big giant oceans or waters will be like These great wonderful lands where you won't have to worry about the oceans anymore These great deeps oceans, right the new earth. Yes, you're the new earth won't have all the oceans anymore right, um, but um Well, I mean, let's let's get back to the the original debate topic Um, you know, how do we know people lived with dinosaurs? I I take it as a given I take it as a given that the biblical text is true But I also take it as a given that most skeptics Don't give it any credence and I understand that Nevertheless, I'm still pointing to You know, you said we don't find dinosaur and human fossils together But then you don't find whale and human fossils together either Different biomes You live in different biomes. Okay There's a whole lot of land animals. You don't find with people a whole lot of them chickens. You don't find chickens in the fossil record with people but they live in well I don't know if you do or don't have to look my I I know my son used to sleep with his chicken So I'm gonna have to look at that But you can find them in the same layers of the Fossil records where you don't find dinosaurs find them in the same layers Yeah, you don't find dinosaurs in the same layers of the fossil records as you do humans So, you know Why would you? In the creationist view, why would you? um because um during the flood um Human a bunch a whole bunch of humans died At the same time dinosaurs did. Okay, let's let's Dinosaurs are all the same type of all different types of sizes So they should have Sorted the same way deals did I I don't want to insult your intelligence, but let's say a few obvious things here The earth is a really big planet. Okay um I live in my house and all the animals live somewhere else not in my house um so In in what you're describing Now you didn't say it so i'm not projecting this on you But a lot of skeptics kind of say this they've got in their head that the creation flood model is kind of like a bathtub full of animals floating around they get stirred up all together and then dropped all of a sudden um But the earth no not drop not deposited is what I mean deposited after the this big flood and sudden mixing on a global scale what I'm trying to describe is is that um A global flood is not like a confined space where everything can mix together readily or quickly either one if you throw a baseball 45 miles an hour through air House, how long does it take to hit the ground? It takes less than a quarter of a second If water is transporting something and it manages to get to 45 miles per hour It's still going to fall out at a relatively it won't fall out quite as fast because it dents in water But it still falls out fast the point is is that is that you're alluding to this idea of mixing because people lived on the On the continent with animals therefore they should be mixed together But water does not flow that way. I thought you said humans lived with dinosaurs I did Okay, then they should have fossilized with humans. No, that's what i'm trying to describe to you is Physically it is not a requisite for them to fossilize together Well, they lived in the same areas So why do you have the same layers? How do you know that? Because you said they walked with man. So why when they fossilized in the same layers? Well, that's a great question because that kind of elucidates a little bit better the The creation flood model is that the very first thing that happens is 40 days of rain You know what animals do whenever it rains very hard? 40 days of laying how how deep was the water over the 40 days? I don't know the bottle isn't specifically said I'm just pointing out that there are 40 40 days of rain and what do animals do when it rains Usually just sit down and they usually bunker down where they sleep at night If they have a place to sleep a lot of the animals just Sleep outside. It depends on the animals. I mean they they all sleep outside from from our vantage point It depends on the animal depends on the type of animal There are on the behavior. Sure. They're burrowing animals that burrow their Deers just stand there Deers just stand in the middle of a field when it rains. I watch Okay, but not when it rains hard and not at night The deer lay down in in thickets and tall very very tall grass whenever they're ready to bed And um, actually deer will go into the forest during a very hard rain They're not going to rain down lay down when it's flooded. But anyways The point that I'm making though is that when you have a very intense rain You get an automatic biological sorting of some sort of some type They kind of sort themselves out into their own habitats where they typically sleep. Do you believe the whole earth flooded? Oh, yeah, absolutely. So all the mountains I Another assumption another assumption. I'm asking a question. No, right, and I'm just pointing out This is a common assumption Do you need the water to be as high as same Mount Everest for this to be true if the whole earth flooded? Yes, so you're making the assumption that I'm saying you probably are making I'm asking the question Sure. So I and I and I'm just pointing out that in your question. There there's this strong hint of an assumption You can say no You can say no, you don't The water point number one the water did cover the entire earth Point number two the mountains did not as we see them today did not exist when the water covered the entire earth How do you know that? Because there's very Good evidence that they've been uplifted through moving continents All secular scientists acknowledge this not over 6,000 years though no Not over 6,000 years over 4,000 years not over 4,000 years over either tectonic plate movements not that quick What are you? Okay, I can't help but ask you know you're going down this rabbit trail What do you actually know about tectonic plate movement? I understand tidal forces pretty well. You like So It's not even physically possible for the earth to be over 100,000 years. It's not. Yeah, it's not physically possible I know I know it's the common teaching But it is literally not physically possible for a number. It has to be older than that just based on where the moon is Based on where the moon is. Yes, and the yeah, and uh, How do you get that? How do you get that? Based on where the moon is right now the earth has to be something like that older Why because the moon is moving away at like 2.5 centimeters per year or something You would have to know where it was in the past to know. Oh, we know where it was because it hit the earth in the past Nobody knows that that's an assumption. That's a bizarre story assumption. It's it's based on um Formally speaking. It's a hypothesis not a fear. It's a hypothesis. It's based on um our understanding of um orbital mechanics but orbital mechanics I do moderate debates normally, you know, I I seriously doubt you could replicate in a lab throwing a ball at another ball And or let's take magnets because it's a little more obvious. We can model it Can you throw a magnet at another magnet and get it to hang in its orbit without actually collapsing in or being thrown out either one No, it's super magnetic. It's super difficult magnetic force attractive force is 10 to 39 power stronger than the gravitational constant so No, so that which makes it even more unlikely that that 10 trillion times that would be a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a thousand times more of attractive force with magnets and gravity is All right, which makes it that much more unlikely that gravity could capture something like that because gravity Because gravity is such a weak force Gravity and capture it would be the sun that captured it and send it into the collision course with the earth But the earth has to capture it itself at some point Yeah Sort of yeah, and so he hit the earth. Anyways, he had tidal forces Anyway, we we can date the age of the earth based on the age of the sun Based on the fusion reaction of the sun Based on all these other things. So we have lots of reasons to know that the earth is um 4.8 billion years old or whatever that 4.6 billion years old 4.55 Yeah, actually actually radiometric dating is one of my specialties. So, um, maybe a different radio We don't need radiometric dating to know how old the earth is. That's where that number comes from But we don't need it to know that though Yeah, you cannot calculate the age of the earth based on anything that has to do with the sun it's strictly from lead lead dating of a meteorite or a I think it's a lunar rock sample That they used and said, okay, this has the right geological context hasn't been reworked in the earth's crust You know um teen jillion times therefore the the dates that we get out of it must Roughly represent the age of the earth and it's based on lead lead Isochron And it is that 4.55 is specifically calculated from that. It says we can use samples from the moon Yeah So back to the dinosaurs Evolution Basically the the basic general theory of evolution does not preclude that dinosaurs continued past this Meteorite impact that they say is the cause of the extinction The general theory of evolution does not preclude that but we do have Modern artistic accurate anatomical renderings You keep seeing that of dinosaur That's I mean how how much more important can it be than to actually so here's what bantz nelson did This is kind of kind of interesting what he did in his book When he compiled this what he did was went back and said, okay Let's get an evolutionist artist To render This fossil find that we have can you show me a non fossil artistic rendering of anything a non fossil? Yeah, like none of those big pictures so any picture of any Like I know art. Okay. Let me let me show you a non fossil anatomical rendering of a picture like images Like it's going to be fantasy art art Like here All right. I'm ready for your screen share there right there And anytime if you guys want to let me know how much longer you'd like to have the discussion You know, it's totally fine if you want to move into questions at any time But if you guys want to take like another 20 minutes or longer, that's fine by me We're just we're just hanging out having a good time. So yeah, let's let's carry on So people have an idea of how things go together anatomically So they can make art that looks anatomical. So there's nothing About that so they can make humans that look anatomical they can make dwarfs that look anatomical they can make Dragons that look anatomical just because People can render artwork that looks anatomical doesn't mean It it's not fantasy. It doesn't mean it's not pure fiction Okay, but that's not the argument. It's not just simply anatomical anatomical. Okay. It's got arms It's got legs. It's got a neck whatever. It's got a head in the right place That's anatomical what I'm saying is if you go back and actually Study Vance Nielsen's work on this subject. He gets rid of all the sensationalized depictions completely because they are decidedly not A scientific type of approach what he does instead is focuses on the ones that actually match at the genus level That's pretty specific because you could make an argument. For example, if you think of saber-tooth tigers We would say as creationists that it's the felid kind. It's the cat kind right in modern taxonomy You would call it felidae The family the family and the kind are roughly the same thing So what is vance nelson doing? He's going a step more specific than that and saying, okay Um, you match not just the general family You match a specific genus of this family So if you think of like, um, uh, torontosaurus rex is a theropod. There, uh, there are a number of different types of theropod dinosaurs uh, torontosaurus rex would be a different genus than something like, um, Uh, I want to say this correct. I'm not positive about this, but bolasa raptor would also be a theropod But it would be a different genus That would have been surprising if we saw Artwork, okay, let's let's talk about this. This is more surprising There's not very many. I haven't really seen any artistic depictions from ancient history of t-rex style Artwork because when we think of animals, we don't think of animals with little stubby arms Right, we think of animals with like are like they can reach out and grab you um, or We think of like long sinuous snake like things with maybe little stubby arms I guess we like the asian snakes and stuff like that But we don't really think of like the big huge meaty head and little stubby arms like the t-rex But it wasn't until we found fossils Of t-rex and we we put the fossils together that we started to see artwork that that was anatomically correct for t-rex, but if you look at like um artistic expressions of of these things It looks like they took animals like a snake And other anatomically correct things and they took these Concepts and put them together to make things that look anatomically correct Some of these fantasy concepts actually match Things that we actually found fossils for others of them don't so just because you found find some things that match Dinosaurs and fossil records doesn't mean that they actually existed as um Fossil records, so i'm afraid that the guy whoever's the his name is again Remember we said just because he found some things Artwork that matches some genus doesn't mean that these creatures actually existed for them to create Art based on those concepts, but it could also be that maybe um these cultures actually did um dig up in Mostly intact fossils It depends on what the region is see if you looked at the region where we found Fossils of these creatures and if those regions match where we find fossils Today of those creatures that would be interesting because that would imply that maybe They discovered fossils Early on and we just didn't know that they did that Yeah, yeah, i'm i'm being patient letting them kind of get his deal out But i do want to respond to a couple things you said there because you were talking about how We do not we did not understand that there were these very short armed creatures until we started digging up fossils But go back and look At those images that i showed earlier I got a screenshot. Let me look I took a screenshot of all your slides So Edmontosaurus Is actually a cave depiction You are also welcome to do your screen share as well t-rocks. So okay, sure Yeah, it was to say earlier You'd said that you had something that you wanted to leave as a backdrop for the debate But we moved into uh, you know, we just moved into the open discussion. So that does that look like it Yeah, let me go ahead and share my screen here. Sure. Um, hopefully I can pick the right one that actually I think Is that in the creation magazine? No, i'm just just a basic google search This or this right here this image right here Yeah, we see that Okay, so you see this image right here Mm-hmm That is the cave rendering they've outlined the outside of it and and then that's a more modern artistic kind of depiction of what Edmontosaurus I suppose it looks like But but there you are there's this very short front armed dinosaur that is actually depicted in caves and then Tana Strophius was one of the other ones that had these very short arms depicted And and so you also made the you were kind of talking like, okay, we can You know through fantasy art kind of stuff We can kind of get some anatomy right here and there which you're referring to is is kind of a artistic license that people take Um The chances of you matching to the genus level correctly like this Is virtually nil whenever you just take artistic license without actually knowing whether such an animal Doesn't match to me that is like a doodle like I don't know what that is like That to me like looks like peridolia that somebody doodled something and we're seeing that's a dinosaur but okay Like nothing's to scale the legs not to scale the bend of the knees not to scale There's no arm there the tail's not to scale Oh, so only so only really well qualified artist count is no No, it doesn't have to be a qualified artist. No here here. Can you still see this? Here's a laser sword depiction Where now that looks good, but I don't know what that is It's it's this is an actual cave depiction where you've got a bunch of guys Basically fighting against this thing and I think if you look at the original replos They kind of imply that this plesiosaur ate one of their buddies. And so they were hunting and down the killing But but anyway, it's it's an anatomically correct version of a plesiosaur It doesn't look like it to me Okay, like the ones on the left like those look legit, but those are just somebody else's Painting, right? That's yeah, I don't think these are considered legitimate But so the one on the right is it's like it's it's it's basically an enhanced version of This is not obviously not what the original looks like specifically with this coloration and And color contrast and that kind of thing But that is very much what the original cave drawing is depending. Okay, so uh I mean that's I It doesn't look like it to me whatever But I struggle at seeing patterns and shapes of things like other people see You know when people like they say they see that You know, you look at those images see the image in the image. Oh like what I don't see anything That just looks like a person in a room Ryan. Can you stop my screen sure? Oh, it looks like there's a skeleton there. I guess I guess I don't know Anyway, I mean this this type of artwork that very well matches fossil reconstructions is ubiquitous And it's like and and so here's one of the one of the telling things about the evolution position on this Is that prominent evolutionists have basically resorted to desperation by saying things like well, maybe Maybe, you know ancient primates were so traumatized By seeing dinosaurs that the imprint stayed in their brain until modern humans developed an evolutionist actually said that a prominent evolutionist actually Said suggested that as a as a possible reasoning for all these Like I'm saying correctly depicted dinosaurs in modern history Yeah, that just doesn't look like a dinosaur to me Technically a plesiosaur would not be a dinosaur because it's dinosaurs are supposed to be land dwellers only It's supposed to exclude things like pterosaurs and pterodactyls and it doesn't look like a plesiosaur to me either it looks like And that's not an actual cave drawing I I'd have to look at the original either like I I don't know. Oh, here's the original Uh, I don't even know what I'm looking at with the original It's it's very faded for sure I don't I don't have a I don't actually have one. Oh, no, that's the egyptian scarab I can't even find the original It's it's very faded. It's hard to see But when it's when it's actually light enhanced It it's a very well depicted version of a creature that we know existed Yeah, a million two years ago But we only have pieces of it so like even like the artistic resuring of the pieces that we put together Anyways, I'm looking at the like the bones that the Of one of them plesiosuers tail I mean part part of this is part of this to me is like like make it an honest Psychological evaluation of some ancient art so an honest Psychological review of or or I don't know if I'm saying it quite right, but But but basically, you know, a lot of ancient cultures are relegated to being these Mythicists, you know, they were naive. They didn't understand science the way we do and you know, that's that's a real common Way that people portray ancient Civilizations, why would it have to be anything to do with science? Why can it just be telling stories and and making stories and Stuff like that that that makes more sense to me. Most of it would be storytelling. Well, that's exactly why I brought this up because if you're doing an honest evaluation and on the psychological evaluation of an ancient culture Let's take the Egyptians for example The ancient Egyptians had all kinds of bizarre mythology, right? They had birdheaded people and All kinds of crazy things like that that don't really exist, right? So you would go, oh, they just were, you know Steeped in mythology and very superstitious They they prayed to weird gods to make things happen make their crops grow and whatever And so they typically get relegated to being, you know, very naive kind of people that had too strong of a of a, you know The mythological or spiritual lean But if you're being honest about the Egyptians, they built freaking pyramids that nobody knows how to build and they were very authoritarian And so what that tells me is psychologically speaking The ancient Egyptians were very practical people They they have a number of inventions that people have no idea how they came up with And the pyramids just being one of them They made Very advanced chemistry toothpaste There's there's a famous depiction in Egyptology where they have a monkey Underneath what is what kind of looks like a light bulb And it's called the iris If i'm saying that right it's they they call it an iris flower depiction something But it actually looks like an a light bulb with electrodes coming off of it I've seen that I think I've seen the picture. Yeah Um, we have an idea how they built the pyramids Um, how we could have built the pyramids. We have an idea how they could have built the pyramids No, nobody alive today can replicate that. Yeah, we yeah, we can build the pyramids today people have an idea I've read enough to know that people do have an idea how to go about it But nobody could actually do it today Oh easily we could do it today with modern tools. The problem is could we do it with ancient tourists? Actually, you probably could not do it even with modern tools and the reason is because the reason is is because they they mined megalithic stones and the the uh, you kind of said it while ago when you were talking about concrete and its consistency Building structures like that out of mixed concrete is not really a great idea We can make really good concrete like we can But nobody's but we don't have to make that like concrete. We can make it out of solid blocks We can build the pyramids today. We we modern construction is amazing Okay, well if you show me somebody doing that, I'll take your word for it. We don't have a reason to they're just like tombstones basically like It's an engineering marvel. That's why it's called one of the seven winners of the world Anyways, it doesn't matter. I I just want to point out We've come around to a whole bunch of different territories. So go ahead I don't call a I don't call ancient people Uh, I don't see that stuff about ancient people They they did the best with the knowledge and the information they had at the time Like I I debate flat earthers all the time and I studied ancient cosmologies and stuff like that Like the ancient world views was based upon what they knew at the time Um, they they only knew the world view that they had it wasn't until they started doing like Trade amongst other civilizations that the world started expanding Where they started communicating with other cultures and other people where they started learning new things And it wasn't until like the 5th century bce that we started really Turn in a corner right with knowledge You know from the ancient world And sort of getting to um more of a modern area era and um And then you know, we had to In in keeping with the actual debate topic what I'm what I'm really getting to here is is that ancient people were by and large very practical And there so their depictions of dinosaurs and dragons and stuff Sure, there is an artistic side to it. Um where where there is some mysticism built into it They did it with birds heads though. I mean does that mean that they didn't know what a bird looked like does that mean We but but by and large the societies themselves, especially the ones that are established They're defined by practical You know functional approach to things and so like if you look at the chinese calendar, for example the 12 Deals on the chinese calendar 11 of them are ordinary everyday animals that everybody's familiar with number 12 Is it a fictitious character all of a sudden that they throw in there the dragon? So they've got the rabbit the snake, you know the the The rooster They've got all those things and then all of a sudden you get this mythological creature thrown in with all these real creatures They have no it I just showed you examples of things that could have been what they called a dragon just because they called it a dragon Doesn't mean it was a fire breathing flying thing It could have been another type of lizard snake crocodile type creature That existed that you even talked about marco poil They even talked about a creature they hunted to extinction There's lots of creatures we hunted to extinction. We know we did But what you're alluding to there when you when you say mammoth we hunted to extinction, right? Hold on What you're alluding to there though is that is that the word dragon is supposed to be associated with these fire breathing You know mystical creatures, but that's not the way the word dragon is actually used in ancient literature It's actually a much broader term more like reptile So a dragon could be any number of physical forms that match real animals It doesn't have to be always this fire breathing thing And so so the Chinese What they actually have in their written history is a royal position In the king's court or however you want to call it of a dragon feeder And and so they hired a person to specifically Feed these reptilian dragons And they're they don't necessarily imply that Whatever kind they had available to them at the time was a fire breather Although I would personally do consent to the idea that There could be fire breathing dragons just maybe not the way you envision it like modern artistic renderings Probably different, but you wouldn't know for example an electric eel Had the ability to produce the high voltage It could if all you knew him from was the fossil record You'd have no idea they had the ability to do that If all you ever had was a lightning bug from a fossil record You'd have no idea it was capable of lighting its body up Yeah, there's lizards exist. We just call them lizards. We don't call them dragons So, I mean they could call it whatever they want to use whatever term they want to So that's all I'm saying like but dinosaurs are not lizards No, you're right and in in the modern sense a lizard is a very different thing than a than a dinosaur It's a different class of reptile in the bible. They use another term the term serpent So if you see the word Serpent most people associate that with a snake, but the bible does not actually directly correlate the two You can it can be a snake Uh, it can be a serpent and not a snake, but a snake would probably be classified as a serpent But a dinosaur is not a serpent or a snake or it's a it is a reptile It is a dinosaur. It's not a reptile Actually, they are so that's another point that we need to kind of cover real quick is that Classically evolutionists subscribed Dinosaurs to being reptiles It wasn't until they kind of dreamt up this idea that they evolved into birds that they decided to declassify them as reptiles And call them something else instead. What do they call them now? I don't know But anatomically from the fossil record. They absolutely do match Reptiles Are they differentiate them from reptiles nowadays? So they're they're cold-blooded They have a three-chambered heart not a not a not a their hearts are not like mammalian hearts at all Um, their skin the textures that we do have available to us from the fossil record are much more like Modern reptiles than they are any other type of of modern animal Um, they're for all intent and purpose. There is no reason to call them anything but reptiles Except we call them dinosaurs That's a specific class of reptiles. Yeah, and they went extinct 66 million years ago Or so the story goes but then there's another brilliant part of this story Bees from Jerusalem No, it's not it literally is not because what they say let's cover that again for the audience's sake because what they say is This iridium layer defines the boundary between the the the what they call the kpg boundary or whatever the cretaceous Whatever anyway, this iridium layer supposed supposedly defines the boundary where Dinosaurs went extinct the problem with that idea though is that There's multiple problems with it dinosaur fossils are typically found in mud flows that have nothing to do with You know a meteor impact directly. It's an inferred Secondary cause but besides that you can go out west and you can literally find dinosaur bones Laying on top of the ground or or lightly buried in the surface of the ground where they're they're exposed Visible there's kind of a to me. It's kind of an iconic video on youtube of this guy out west I don't remember exactly where he is colorado probably but He's out there out west. He's walking around and he's saying he's saying 65 million years These things have been in the earth and now they're all eroding away We have to hurry up and get these so we can have all this evidence, you know and and be able to study them And blah blah blah, but he's literally walking up and pointing out that dinosaur fossils are right there at ground level And no iridium layer above them Well because it will it will erode the iridium layers will erode that's the story Well, I can still radio you can still you can still date the layers But the layers still will erode due to water water will erode All the all the layers That's a whole other rabbit trail, but you notice that the that the west side of the us is a bunch You notice you notice that the west side of the us is at a much higher elevation than the east side of the us Depends on the part of the us but yes The average elevation is quite a bit higher in the west, right? I've lived all over So now that just leaves a bunch more question begging How do you have 65 million years worth of history to run it off the top over there? but yet when you look at the At the eastern side of the us you're looking at you know two million year old dirt in a lot of places like where I live Because it's like It's like how did the question is how did the lower elevation managed to preserve? It's it's um geologic rock record so well Even the lower elevation is typically the fastest to erode we have the higher rainfall Where the direction the rivers flow from north down through the eastern side of the us I mean it spells nothing but faster erosion than the west with the lower rainfall and higher elevation So it's like it's just made up storytelling. It can't be made up storytelling It's based on it's based on water erosion. It's all it's based on So it's based on sediment development. This iridium layer is there across the world at a place This radiometry dated to be about 66 million Years old all across the world So we know where this layer is and erosion happens. We know where erosion is I can share this screen So people want to see what we're talking about with this iridium layer So iridium layer so people can sort of see there's different layers crustaceous Sediments are below it tertiary coal layers or There's a coal layer above it. That's where we get coals and stuff like that Anyway, so this iridium layer is there. This is where the meteorite struck where we think this Um, the last event happened for the which image are your which image on screen this one right here on the line on the They're right. Well, I mean I've already described the obvious problem here what they're showing here is a Cretaceous boundary that's well below some some other quote-unquote younger Rock strata, but what I was describing out west though that upper rock strata doesn't even exist there In many places. Yes, some of it's eroded because of water runoff. Yes, that happens In some locations in some locations. It doesn't happen So it depends on where rock water runoff is and the elevation of different The reason why you got higher elevation is the west is because the the pacific tectonic plate Is moving in underneath this way you get all the earthquakes and stuff on the west coast is because tectonic plate moving is moving that the you get the coastal ridge and The rockies and moving it moving it up and that that's how you get higher elevations. Sure Agreed. I mean my creationist model doesn't say you anything different It's at the time frames. Well, how fast does it happen and how long ago did it happen? Well, we can measure it You cannot measure time time is not measurable in any sense of the word You can measure tectonic plate movements Sure, that's not time. That's current day speed That doesn't tell you how fast it was moving you can measure the speed of light. You can measure time You can measure velocities. You cannot measure time There is literally it is literally physically impossible to measure time Like that you have to observe it. You can measure time with the clock All right, it seems like we may have hit a wall on this one So if there's any other little things you guys want to put a bow on Or any other avenues you want to go into before we go into q&a I know this has been a long one Also, feel free if you guys need to use the washroom right quick I can you know pick up my broom do some house clean keeping at any time. So don't worry about that um But yeah, if there's anything else like I say you guys want to put a bow on or even go into some new territory That's totally okay No, I didn't I I personally don't have anything further to go through. I'm kind of need to wrap this up It's a short topic Really? No worries. No worries. Well, uh, then I will remind our live chat Yet we will move into our q&a section So if you haven't already we got a couple upcoming streams So tomorrow a ross is making a comeback after some hiatus So if you haven't uh, if you haven't seen those debates yet, go check them out He's going to be debating against phd tony flat versus globe. Uh, that's going to be a lot of fun We're still working out the date there for the destiny versus uh, uh, dr. Javad hashmi Um Debates so once we got that figured out, uh, you'll get a notification of the exact date But make sure you hit the notification And then of course alex stein is going to be debating at dr. J. F. Garipi That's going to be happening on saturday and then we have two new speakers allegedly eon versus the right corner on Does god exist? So make sure that you hit all the notifications for all those debates We've been working hard to get those put together and hopefully you enjoy the content we're delivering So we're going to go into super chats, which has been spearheaded Majoratively here by josh with jamie. So josh with jamie. Thank you so much for all the super chats And uh, yeah, let's start out josh with jamie says if job was familiar with behemoth Because it was a dinosaur that lived during his time. God wouldn't have to describe it to him He could just say the name the way he does every other animal I take it that's for I take it that's for me Yes, I I imagine And that was much more of a an assertion than it was a question And I would staunchly disagree. There's a reason you have a conversation and discuss details You don't just round everything down to simple one or two words Any thoughts on the other side there? Oz Um, I think that's a good point I think and I think god actually used um allegorical language to describe behemoth And I think it is meant to show that there are creatures That god created to show his dominion over the world that There are times when humans need to use intercessionary prayer To beseech for god's help and this is sort of a story that job Was um telling people to see sometimes we got to ask god for help All right, did you want to wrap that up or just carry on t rock? No, we're we're good. We can go on. All right. Well, thank you so much and once again, josh What jamie is coming in with another question. So if anybody else has any questions and wants to put in a super chat Uh, it now would be a great time as we're moving through these questions Some of them could take longer than others and uh, hopefully we can get to some of the chats that I pulled from our live audience Uh, but let's just uh, let's get into the next one josh, what jamie asks t rock Not one expert on tectonic plates will tell you that it's possible for them to have moved mountains within 4 000 years It's a bit of a statement again, but uh, I think they want to interact with you here. So, um No, it's um Again, it's an assertion and it's completely unfounded because there are actually well qualified geologist and geophysicist on both sides of this debate And so that it is factually incorrect what he said, but I will tell you personally Uh, just to be clear What was his name joshua? Uh, yeah, their name is joshua jamie. Okay. So to be fair to joshua There are many creationists that incorporate a model of plate tectonics very similar to The mainstream version of it. I will tell you very plainly It is storytelling. It is physically impossible for the mechanisms that are described in the secular literature To actually happen that way and it has to do with a very basic Survey of strength of materials Um basalt is marginally stronger than concrete and you can't pull anything with a slab of concrete But having said that there are well qualified geologists and geophysicists That will tell you very plainly that the mountain uplift if the only way it could happen Is rapidly you would not have steep mountain ranges steep slopes on mountains Millions of years after the fact if it happened slowly because erosion far outpaces The uplift that we observe today All right thoughts on the other side Yeah rapid uplifting would break stuff. Um slow uplifting would allow it to form So if the if you're talking about the tensile strength of material A raptured Movement a tectonic plate Plates would cause rapid upheaval rapid volcanic activity rapid floods rapid typhoons rapid storms On the planet that we did not experience over the last 4,000 years which falsifies this idea that we had rapid tectonic plate plate movement over the last 4,000 years if you're going to appeal to some Pangea and some Where all the continents were together when Noah Landed and then that's how you got all the the life to This burst so we know for a fact that didn't happen over the last 4,000 years Otherwise the world would have been destroyed over and over again We would still be experiencing that the tech the plates are not moving quick enough For that to happen. We can measure that how fast The plates are moving today. You're not moving fast enough Um, let's let that out a little bit because um, you made some more assertions that are actually not true, but um One of the things that I like to point to is that in the in the open literature The words like sudden rapid catastrophic They're ubiquitous in the open literature when you're talking about geological formations A whole bunch of formations are out there are considered very rapid in terms of gila how they would say in geological time It's very sudden But then they don't get much more specific than that most of the time They just want to say, oh, it was sudden, but we can't really say, you know, specifically to the number of years We just know it was sudden sudden rise sea level sudden rise in what's called eustatic sea level Number of geological formations including like lava flows and stuff like that They're way too big and had to have happened in a very short time Based on, uh, you know the thermal cooling properties of lava and stuff like that There's a number of methods that you can do to do that, but erosion rates by themselves Basically discount the possibility of deep time No, they're through show that because if we continuously have tectonic plate movements where the earth's crust is continuously reforming Where we have continuous where the sediment layer keeps resurfacing keeps reshaping the earth Then no erosion Except it's not Except it's not we're sit. We're sitting on a granite crust that has only ever been granite If if granite gets recycled it becomes rhyolite And we are sitting on top of original granite crust There is no imaginary rock cycle where it's been through this full loop one full time It doesn't exist. We're sitting on a granite crust period And and that tells you that this rock this imaginary rock cycle is is not what you described at all So where do you where do you get the idea that the granite crust goes away? That doesn't float across the layer at the magma the typical argument is Isostatic compensation where when you erode off the top of the continent you essentially lighten it and it floats a little higher You can only do that so much before you've got nothing but granite exposed Because what actually happens to the sediment is it goes down into the Into the ocean And it does not have a mechanism to bring it back on top The only thing that could happen to it is and and the classical story is that it gets subducted It gets pulled in with subduction and that's how the alleged rock cycle is supposed to happen But the end result would still be what I described It would be granite at the very top It would be eroded away and then everything that got recycled would be something besides granite Well, we don't know if the the tectonic plates always move in the same direction So there's no that's that's another really good point Do some basic physics and you find that on on an impact crash So this is done particularly with like a crash test for vehicles. There is a deceleration curve Now it's it's called a curve in a very very loose sense. I'm talking tectonic plates So am I so am I you're you're we're talking tectonic plates And so if you have a continent crash, it's got to follow a deceleration curve Which means it starts out moving and then all of a sudden it has an exponential drop in velocity So what are we moving now a couple inches a year? Maybe Yeah, some real slow mover that is very typical of a standard deceleration curve from an impact collision Oh, so you're not talking about tectonic plate movement. You're talking about your own interpretation That's take all like tectonic plate movement. You're not talking about the science of geology So, you know, you're calling it a crash Right, but it was it a crash Actually read the open literature. They describe mountain ranges as being crashes As crashes If I look it up, they're going to call it a crash you read read several papers on mountain formation and you will see that they That word sudden it's going to come up That we're just going to call it rapid rise of the mountain due to subduction Yeah, but not a crash, but they're not going to call it a crash But so you could have tectonic plates slowing down Due to subduction as the mountain rises There's two different ways for mountain rises to the two plates can go like this, right? Sure, you can have subduction of one plate that pushes it up So there's multiple ways that that they can happen with the The granite movement of the plates Even if we grant the the secular version of tectonics, they're basically secular version Wait, wait, wait. It's not a secular version of plate tectonics. First of all, first of all, it's secular or non secular You can be a creationist this this plate tectonics does not falsify god We can okay that right? We don't have to argue semantics I'm just pointing out that there are three mechanisms if tectonic if if the if the scientific literature version of tectonics were correct. You still have three basic Things that decelerate the motion one of them's friction one of them is Converting potential or converting kinetic energy into potential energy by uplift and the other one is physical resistance So you got three mechanisms all of them even in plate tectonics are going to decelerate the motion Yeah, because I don't want to I don't want to insult a 90% of christians that accepted the earth is ancient Zero when I'm talking scientific evidence and physics. I'm not talking about what people believe Well, you called it the secular model, but most most Most except the earth is ancient right most christians. Well, you can be fair to them and say that they got it from the secular Literature that's where they got it from We we agree that the age of the earth doesn't falsify god evolution doesn't falsify god Actually, they are mutually exclusive You're seeing that they shouldn't believe in god then if they believe in evolution and believe in ancient earth I'm saying biblical history is mutually exclusive to deep time So you're seeing they should not believe in god. So no, I'm saying that you're being that that people who hold to a biblical Framework and a deep time are intellectually Inconsistent and theologically so you're seeing I'm rational for being an atheist then if well No, because atheism. Oh, not is is a self-defeating proposition. But we're not We're not gonna be the case because Empiricism is like justified because it's actual observations Empiricism doesn't justify justifying empiricism. Well, I'm not doing that. That'd be logical positivism. I'm not using logical positivism But anyways But yeah, how is granite formed as a granite transitions from high pressure and temperature to Pressure and temperature it might slightly expand the crash. So I'm just trying to see how granite is formed. But anyways Did you have a last word? Don't go ahead There's there's a lot of fossils in that too that you can't get from this rock cycle All right, let's ask that next question. Hopefully that answers All your concerns there joshua jamie regarding our speaker's thoughts on your question regarding tectonic plates Let's see here I wonder who are next questions from joshua jamie asks with the titanic size of these land masses Being pushed thousands of feet into the air to have formed to have formed under 4 000 years is ludicrous Coming right right straight for you. So um, they're saying that they think it's ludicrous without these titanic sized land masses Are being pushed thousands of feet into the air why I mean, I have literally you can literally do the math on this You can basically correlate the mass of the continent and a velocity to the height of the Of a given mountain range or or you know a set of mountains And you can you can do this mathematically and it is totally reasonable There is nothing in physics that precludes that as a matter of fact the the thing in physics that precludes Deep time I'm back to erosion because Ozzie and pointed out earlier that the moon was closer to the earth in the past It's moving away today Which means tidal forces were stronger at whatever percentage you think you want to assign tidal forces were stronger in the past and erosion is too fast today so You you literally cannot form steep mountain ranges through very slow gradual Um pushing because one of one of the physics mechanisms there that that people almost never talk about when they talk about mountain uplift Is that in order to uplift any cubic inch of of land? That means you have to subduct more than that because you're being resisted physically and by uh friction and so forth So it takes more mass going down than what comes up because of friction losses We sometimes round that off to the second law of thermodynamics, but it's a reality You cannot lift one inch up without taking more inches down And so that precludes deep time as well when you put those three together closer moon higher tidal forces Too fast of erosion rate today and a very slow movement of continents that has to drag more mass down than it pushes up You can't get deep time Okay, so more mass down than up that has nothing to do with second law of thermal dynamics And that's just not true because you could have air gaps tidal forces that would tidal forces is about gravity the gravitational force as it The differential force across the mass to the earth based on the mass of the moon Which means that the length of the day on the earth would have been shorter If the earth was pangea then erosion would have actually been less Based on the tidal forces because the oh, yes Could I understand tidal forces tidal forces don't have to as much to do with the tides On earth you're if you're talking about the the tides like the water tides tidal forces about the gravitational force how it interacts with the earth um If the moon was when the moon was closer the length of the day on earth was shorter Due to the tidal forces on earth that that was the fact and the length of the day Is actually getting longer as the moon is moving further away from the earth We can measure it we can measure it that the length of the day Is getting longer with the clock both So and I just want to cover this with granite granite melts when it subducts and then in the magma It rises because it's lighter and it um hardens again. So that's how we get granite that reforms Solidifying back into granite So you said it becomes something else but i'm reading from national oceanic An atmospheric administration that it becomes granite again and there was a third claim you made about So that's not a second law of thermodynamics second law of thermodynamics is about how um total entropy increases for the overall system the overall system's the universe So as uh, we get see we get energy from the sun So the total the total usable and entropy increases But the entropy on the earth decreases because we absorb um energy from the sun it's sort of like how Evolution works we um the total due to evolution the total entropy of that system decreases, but the universal entropy increases because The point of I understand entropy very well and the point of bringing it up is is not to talk about thermodynamics per se The point was that you lose Some of the energy in the motion to heat Because of friction that's the point is it's not to make a Sidebar out of thermodynamics per se just to say that when you when you do this process of Pushing plates together and uplifting a lot of that energy is lost to heat That's the second law of thermodynamics. It's point. It's a it's a it's a consequence of it. I'll put it that way Um, yeah, but the point is not to talk about conservation of of energy It's the it's the fact that you do lose energy and it's not conservation energy. It's it's uh entropy, but yeah Okay, I understand now so the heat portion you were talking about subduction like it has to Lift and go up but that there's there's fractional forces in that, right? Yeah So if you start out with a hundred joules of energy It can't all go into uplift part of it has to be lost to heat Yeah So what's going on there is we we have gravitational interaction with the moon That friction with the moon that gravity interaction with the moon and the sun those tidal forces That's part of what's causing that the movement of the tectonic plates of the earth Is causing that that's causing tectonic movements is and it's causing bulges of the crust also that Those tidal forces it's also what's causing the day to become longer And it's what's causing the moon to move away. Sure Agreed The one thing I would take issue with so you say the erosion would be less in a pangea configuration of the continents I I think I would take issue with that because in a pangea configuration. You've got more open uninterrupted ocean body And that means that um, there's nothing to break the waves so to speak as as the the Moon is dragging the tide around the earth There's nothing to interrupt it so it can retain a higher percentage of its energy for a longer period of time until it hits a shoreline It depends on the depth of the oceans And it depends on the width of the oceans So there's there's a whole bunch of goat so And so when you're talking amperdromic points the amperdromic plus the heights of the tides depends on the depth of the oceans and the the width of the oceans But it also depends on the the closeness of the moon the closest of the moon um also plays a role in that but the The way that gets broken up is due to the Coriolis forces um based on the um Depth of the oceans and so you got two things going on you have equilibrium theory of tides We're going on a different topic. Yeah, but I've studied this in depth because I debate frigging flat earthers about gravity all the time So anyways, and and I've I've made it work with the equilibrium theory to time and dynamic theory of tides So I can make sense of gravity and tidal fourth is and tidal fourth is like if you Look at roach limits where moons break up, which is eventually going to happen to the um One of the moons on mars, I think is like in 50 million years it's going to break up Where our moon is going to go away. Bye. Bye Anyways, I'm ready for the next question. I I think it was your question anyways It is so yeah, I they I think they're all for t rock so I mean, uh, yeah, if you had any closing thoughts if we get a tag though, I swear because Those words anyways, no, you know what I'm talking about. Uh, any closing remarks there t rock I'll just say, you know Nobody has effectively dealt with today's erosion rates. That's kind of the strength of the argument Today's erosional rates are way too high coastlines are disappearing around the globe at an alarming rate People have literally relocated towers multiple times because of how fast coastlines are eroded And so if you if you use uniformitarian principles and extrapolate erosion rates You can never come to the conclusion that the earth is Millions of years old because erosion in of itself being super generous puts a 10 million year limit In reality, it probably puts less than five and maybe even less than one But it's because today's erosion rates are too fast Oz you uh, you got some face acting going on over there. Did you have something you wanted to say? We're in uh, we're in a mid middle of an icy or inter interglacial interglacial period. Thank you We're an interglacial period and we're in a global warming period. Um Due to man-made global warming. So we got two things going on Um, so and so we get erosion due to sea level rise because we're in an interglacial period Okay, so let me let me let me get this straight because this is kind of what you're implying So modern technology the industrial era started what 150 170 years ago? in the 1800s rough life, right? So 170 years and man-made global warming has basically completely disrupted the the million year timeline When it comes to it's not a million year for interglacial period has been what 20 000 years. No, that's not what I mean. I just mean that Basically your argument is that man-made causes have accelerated things in less in less than 170 years That they're unbearable for a deep time No, eventually we'll enter another glacial period All right, this might be a good place to carry on from there gents But yeah, thank you for answering these questions and taking the time to really flesh out through your thoughts You know people are getting a I'd say a really fair representation of What would be like to be in a room with t-rock and awes? So Yeah, definitely give us a like if you enjoy this content Let's see. Joshua. Jamie asks kangaroos were described as human with the head of a deer and some having two heads You can't rely on these stories or stories and drawings. Sorry So kangaroos were described as a human with the head of a deer Yeah, I mean that's a That's kind of a non sequitur kind of argument. There's a lot of mythology in historical depictions and and tech That doesn't Devaluate the fact that people actually witnessed real history. It's it's what you do when you evaluate a text like or a or a depiction like that Those depictions don't match anything from the fossil record or anything known today So we tend to disregard them completely. We're only interested in the ones that are anatomically correct Basically, what you're alluding to is we have to wipe away all of written history Just because there's some, you know, mysticism or mythology in some of it Which is it's just a non sequitur Any thoughts over there us or I I would say unless the history shows like actual science behind it Then it's not a scientific claim. It it it's not even historical claim. It's artwork Artwork is not a historical claim um It just isn't unless we have some type of documentation evidence or some type of literature to go behind it to show What type of claim it is like for job? We have scholarship Behind job and what it's about and I try to present that I ran out of time Because I didn't time myself. I should I try to be like better Have you never taken a university course called art history? Yeah, but that's different art history is about the history of the artwork. It doesn't say uh, but that's different from um Historical art right art history would be the the point is is that art literally informs us about the culture the historical the historical context of the culture It depends on the art. Yes All right, so this might be pulling us back into the last question But uh, joshua jamie has put in our live chat and I feel like it's only fair since they've asked so many super chats to uh, uh, expound on What they've put in here So they say the heavier a mass is the harder it is to stop it moving The amount of inertia a tectonic plate has is unimaginable To think it needed to be moving fast is just a misunderstanding of basic physics Thoughts on the panel there But we got two people you want to go do you want to go first housing? um I mean, I don't know how fast tectonic plates are moving but relative like fast is relative so Like you talked about when they said sudden and they said over a period of time like like like I just want to put it in perspective like these words don't mean anything You have to give measurements and stay over what period of time Otherwise, they're meaningless. They're they're adjectives that have no meaning until you give measurements So that that was one of my points is that when you read those words, they don't take the trouble to Specify what the time frame is they rarely ever do they just throw the words out there without But but specifically so the the comment there from the the question there Was talking about the larger a mass is the harder it is to stop so on and so forth obviously it's it's inertia and momentum and you know One half somebody who doesn't deny the law the laws of motion. Oh my goodness. This is like Yeah So to make a tickle me osi and my goodness he's all He's ecstatic So just like on a yeah, just like on a vehicle has a crush zone The purpose of that crush zone is to is to control the deceleration And so when you're talking about continental mass and what is its quote unquote crush zone in other words What's the the front line impact zone look like what type of material is it made out of it's a giant crush zone that that basically You know decelerates at some you know rate that that actually is physically plausible, but Going a little bit further than that one of the problems with the modern idea of plate tectonics Is that the mantle is actually solid rock not Not some kind of viscous liquid. It's solid rock And there is no known physical mechanism to do what they propose what they say is you've got these these Hot zones in the mantle and cold zones in the crest and therefore the density difference causes some some sinking into the mantle It's basically what they're describing is akin to let's say you have a very hot piece of lead that's not Molten yet, and then you have something heavy on top of it is supposed to sink into it But in reality a very hot piece of anything can sustain the pressure above it very well without sinking the problem is even if you had a what what they appeal to is a some type of of radioactivity to create these alleged hot zones and Even if you had them you still have a strength of materials issued overcome Because if the salt just like concrete if it were to start taking a dive All it would do is break off just like concrete would if you if you if you quit supporting concrete Properly, it's just going to sag and break That's all it's going to do and that's what basalt would do because it's it's got similar It's a slightly better, but it's got similar Material characteristics to to concrete in that regard its tensile strength is just really low If you had rebar steel rebar, which has a very very high tensile strength in the basalt, it still would work All right, I think what we'll do is we'll move to the last respond to that If we can keep it quick because I know t rock said that he wanted to get moving and we are almost at two and a half hours So I want to keep it just below that if we can I did say really quick Go ahead. I just see the band radius though of the material is really long and um going back to title forces the The moon actually causes a tidal bulge of the earth's crust It's a couple of million couple centimeters That we can measure so this granite the earth's crust actually does bulge up Due to the moon and we and it actually when neil de grace ties us as the oceans bulge and We move through the that doesn't happen because of because of um for the oldest pulses but The earth crust does Because the earth's crust is not fluid like the ocean is so the we get tidal bulges Of the earth's crust and it doesn't break. Well, it does break but it it it's so firm that it just sort of like reseals anyways, but we do get breaks from the earth's crust, but I but I'm just seeing rock Over super long distance. It's going to have some Ability that bend over super long distances. So I was trying to find out What the flexibility of the rock is over a specific link? I bet you it has some ability to flex over a link I'll just quick word look at the topography of the ocean floor. There's nothing uniform about it Why no All righty, it sounds like we've had a great moment of unity actually a few good moments of unity I was saying the other day that uh Modern day debate what we should do is get like a button that we can press Whenever we have a moment of unity so that there's like this big banner that pops up on the screen and says like they agree And it flashes like hallelujah. All right Joshua jamie says the fact that a species stopped showing up in a fossil record It doesn't necessarily mean it stopped existing after that But it certainly doesn't help the case that it did exist. It did exist after that prove it This is a little this word a little bit Give me one second. Let's see the fact that a species stopped showing up in fossil record It doesn't necessarily mean it stopped existing talking about the fish Okay, I was gonna say yeah We covered this I think there was a fish That we stopped seeing in the fossil record Then we saw it 60 million years later Then we oh that's a problem Um, then we found live ones. So the living fossils is the problem so So the the the thing is well, it just changed it just moved the different areas like is the explanation And josh is technically correct and that's not an argument I was making anyway, but he's technically correct that when when you quit seeing fossils It doesn't actually speak to the continuation or the extinction either one but That's why I pointed it out as a logical disconnect between the idea of dinosaur extinction And disappearance from the fossil record in general. That's a very common Connection that evolutionists make they quit seeing it in the fossil record They quit seeing it today And so we'll grant okay. You don't find one today. It must actually be extinct. Okay. That's fine But go back to the fossil record. You have no idea when it went extinct Except we have all these stories telling us that yeah, we know it went extinct because that's the last time we saw the fossil records So josh was actually making the point that the evolutionary storyline gives a logical fallacy We've been talking about terrible lizards now All right, I think what we'll do is let's go into our closing statements So this is a good opportunity for both of you to let our live audience know where they can find you The subjects of debates you'd like to uh, you know Hash out in the future on modern day debate, you know, whether they're Anything just let our audience know where you're standing on those ideas And maybe you know, I'll have people reach out to me and say I want a debate Yeah, you know oz and on this topic or t rock on xyz topic. So, um, yeah, it's been a lot of fun Thanks for keeping everything amicable guys. Uh, so I will start out with you oz and you have one minute on the floor Let everybody know where you're at Your thoughts on this discussion and uh, maybe some other things you'd like to talk about Yeah, I bought a cabinet experiment. I did an unboxing and the glass was broke. So I'm getting a new one anyways, um, I I write articles on On um x is oz and talks. I run a youtube channel called matters now Um, so I did an article on fine tuning and purpose and cosmic coincidence Sort of related to this and went on um evolution and stuff like that You guys can go check them out at oz and talks on x and then come check out matters now I'm going to be doing some experiments on gravity Electrostatic forces. I'm going to do a full course pendulum. I ordered all the material for that I'm I'm running fundraisers. So if people want to help me buy this stuff so I can do the experiment So I'd help it to be great. It's going to cost me like $2,700 for those two tests, but whatever um So, yeah, that's me. Um, ozian. Thanks a lot for being here t rock. Oh, yeah, I like debating flat earth, um and Moon landing hoaxes and stuff like that. So I do that a lot. I like to be any religion I don't necessarily like debating that god doesn't exist I I like debating That you can believe that god exists and still believe that science is true Um, and that's really my position All right, you got it. Well, thanks so much for coming out to the channel. Uh, ozian. It's been a blast Uh, t rock over to you a one minute on the floor Okay, I want a special thanks to ozian for having a polite discussion. I appreciate that I like to keep it, you know, civil Um, just a quick recap on the debate in my position The biblical timeline History is correct and the argument I'm making is that when you survey Modern history on depictions of dinosaurs Essentially the the the path that vance nelson took in his book was Kind of a form of cladistics where you're picking A certain number of traits to match up to a known organism in order to classify it And so he has a much more scientific approach than you'll probably find anywhere else out there So I challenge anybody to um go find that book dire dragons and to go look at the actual historic Depictions that I'm presenting to make my case. So Thanks again guys appreciate it ryan for Posting us and james for setting it up Yeah, yeah, actually. Yeah, that's a big big shout out to james. Uh, he has been generally rocking the setting up of these debates, but Recently I've been taking up booking some more myself So you can always hit me up in the modern day debate discord or some mean email at bc.adt And uh, we can try to get you on the show, but of course, uh, uh, yeah t rock Are there any other subjects that you haven't gotten to discuss on modern day debate yet that you'd like to Like to maybe get your teeth sunk into Yeah, somebody, you know of osseans demeanor would be a good conversation for like radiometric dating, for example I do age of the earth that sort of thing. Um Any any number? I mean, I'll do evolution Biological evolution. It's not my strength, but I'll do that There's a number of topics that that I like that all have to do with origin specifically and it's always from a biblical framework Awesome. Well, yeah, we look forward to having both of you back. So once again to everybody hanging out in the live chat Uh, I hit the like button if you haven't already share this out in those spaces that you like having conversations We are going to be back tomorrow night. Uh, so keep an eye out for that hit the notification For our flat versus globe debate tomorrow And uh, once again, we've got all kinds of debates, uh, lined up for you. I'm not going to go through the list right now Again, I'm going to let our speakers go. So, uh, thanks again, uh, both to ozzy Ozzie and sorry ozzie and I called you oz all debate now. I got to try to fix it. I does it correctly too. It's just ozzie Ozzie and yeah, and then uh, yeah, sorry and also t rock for coming out. Cheers everyone Words are hard Yeah, I know