 Hey everybody, today we're debating whether or not dinosaurs live with man and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for this epic debate as this is going to be a fun one, folks. This is the first time, believe it or not, that Nephilim Free and Tom Jump have ever crossed swords. So this is going to be a great time. This is going to be unbelievable. I wanna let you know both of their links I have put in the description for you folks. So that way, if you're listening and you're saying, oh, you're right. This is unbelievable. I want more. There is more at their links, which I've put in the description just for you. So with that, it's gonna be a pretty open kind of format tonight. Namely, we're gonna have 10 minute opening statements from each side and then open dialogue followed by Q&A. Also though, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates to come. So for example, a flat earth debate tomorrow night with Team Skeptic and Flat Earth Aussie pending some controversy that I can wrap up with Flat Earth Aussie. And also we are very excited as we will have another tag team debate in case you saw it tonight. And that'll be on next Tuesday with Dr. Josh in Skyler Fiction. But don't wanna take any more time. We're gonna jump right into this. So Nephilim Free is going first tonight and folks that might be buffering a little bit, hang with us if we buffer a little bit, we will fight through it. And I think we will make it. So switching over to full screen for Nephilim Free. Neph, the floor is all yours. Thanks so much for being here tonight. Really appreciate it. Thanks, James, for hosting. I don't see my screen share showing up, I guess it will in a moment. Yup, just on like a, about a 15 second delay, that's all. Oh, okay. All right. So dinosaurs and man. Now, to refute the evidence that I'm providing the dinosaurs and man's coexisted, my opponent must, one, provide empirical evidence that there was a gap in time between dinosaurs and man. This evidence must be testable, otherwise he would be appealing to an idea, not testable evidence. Or show that mankind's historical depictions and legends of dinosaurs or of other creatures and not of dinosaurs. And show that fossil footprints of dinosaurs and humans in the same geological strata are not those of dinosaurs or not those of humans or both. My opponent's not going to be able to show any of those criteria to meet them. So ancient, early in the 19th century, 18th, 19th century, man really didn't have a decent idea what a dinosaur looked like on the left. You have a 19th century concept of what a guanodon looked like. And on the right, a 20th century depiction based on science, modern science. Here's the same thing from Megalosaurus, 19th century depiction of Megalosaurus, 20th century technology gives us a better idea. They got it very wrong. Megalosaurus, 19th century concept, 20th century technology on the right. Ancient man accurately depicted dinosaurs. So the idea that ancient man saw fossils in the earth and accurately drew them doesn't work. They had to have seen the creature, not its bones. Here's an ancient depiction of a crested corianthus. They depicted it with a water under its neck. This is commonly what it is believed to have possessed. Here's a Montosaurus drawn by Native Americans in an upright position because it's in a defensive position. This is what the animal would do like a black bear when it stands up because it meets a threat. Ancient man depicted it correctly. This is from the Shang dynasty in China. Notice the textured skin. Late 20th century science discovered that many dinosaur species had textured skin. So they actually depicted that correctly. They got the upturned nose, the crest on the head right, and the crest going down the tail right. Here is a depiction of a dinosaur, a boat, and snakes on a rock wall in Ontario, Canada. This is from Israel. Here's a giant lizard-like dinosaur attacking possibly a T-Rex-type animal, or Allosaurus, attacking a horse while another dinosaur is on looking. What kind of animal is big enough to bite the back of the neck of a horse and take it down that way? This is a stegosaurus depicted on a Cambodian temple built approximately 1100 A.D. And now evolutionists claim that these spines on the back of the thing are actually leaves. They're not actually part of the animal, but that's not true. These peoples were very good at depicting what they wanted to depict, especially flora, plant life. And they didn't put flora in there. It would be all around the animal had they done so. This is from the pallet of Norma, King Norma. It's ancient Egyptian. It depicts two sauropod dinosaurs with their necks intertwined. This is a Native American depiction of a dinosaur with a man on the side, you see there. Now anybody that looks at that, even a small child, would obviously think of a dinosaur when they see this image. This is Lusotitan, Crested's gold giant sauropod dinosaur. Babylonian depiction of them, two of them with their necks intertwined. This is Lusotonian again, depicted in Babylonian ancient art. Two of them with their necks intertwined. This is from an ancient Egyptian mosaic. The inscription there is in Greek and it literally says crocodile lizard and depicts humans standing on the shoreline as they look at this creature in the river. This is a medieval tapestry, depicts what we would call by legend, we would call this a dragon. But anybody looking at this image and the child, the infant one over on the right is gonna think dinosaur when they look at it. This is also from a temple and obviously depicts a giant lizard-like dinosaur. These are human and dinosaur fossil footprints in the Plexi River in Granrose, Texas. These are early 1970s photographs of these men excavating them by removing rock layers. Here they come with a bulldozer to do the same thing. And here's what they found. Dinosaur and human foot tracks in the very same strata. That's absolutely impossible unless man lived with dinosaurs. Here's more of them. On the right, you see human footprints. On the left, there are sauropod dinosaur foot tracks. And here's the same footprints. This is a close-up. I've drawn lines so you can see what they are. As you can see from the magnification on the right, the right side is obviously a human-shaped foot. And there is a sauropod dinosaur foot tracks that cross it in this very same strata. Evolutionists claim these are not human footprints, but they absolutely are. Look at the one at the top on the right. It's a human footprint. It's just denial. This is how evolutionists attempt to get around these tracks. They depict them in the wrong way. And they'll say these are mud collapses. These look like three toes. This is mud collapses around a sauropod dinosaur track instead of a human footprint, but it's not. You see on the right, an actual sauropod dinosaur footprint. Where's the heel? As you can see from the left, the actual fossil reconstruction. Sauropod dinosaurs, three-toed ones. I mean, not sauropod, but three-toed dinosaurs. They didn't have a heel. So these are not. These are human footprints where the mud collapses around them. They're not dinosaur footprints. So the evolutionist argument about that is false. Now, ancient man depicted many times legends of dinosaurs and their legends. All the tribes of mankind have legends of dinosaurs. Let me see here. I'm trying to stop screen sharing. I need to select zoom, I guess. Yes, this is not working. Oh, okay, stop sharing. There we go. So ancient man depicted dinosaurs in art quite accurately and has countless legends of dinosaurs. Marco Polo wrote of dinosaurs. When he took a trip to China, he said, and I quoted, leaving the city of Yaqui and traveling 10 days in a westernly direction, you reach the province of Karazhan, which is also the name of the chief city. Here, there are huge serpents, 10 paces in length, about 30 feet, and 10 spars about eight feet in girth of the body. And the four part near the head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of a tiger with eyes larger than a four-penny loaf and are very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man nor any kind of animal that will approach them without terror. They are met with the smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long, and the following method is used for taking them. In the daytime, by reason of great heat, they lurk in the caverns from once at night. They issue to seek food. And whatever beast they meet, they can lay hold of, whether it tiger, wolf, or any other, they devour, after which they drag themselves towards some lake spring of water or river in order to drink. By their motion in this way along the shore, and their vast weight, they make a deep impression as if a heavy being being drawn in along the sands. And those who employ, whose employment it is to hunt them observe the track by which they make their most frequently accustomed to go and fix in the ground several pieces of wood armed with sharp iron spikes so that they may cover the sand in such a manner as to not be perceptible. When therefore the animals make their way towards the places where they usually hunt, they are wounded by these instruments and speedily killed. So he wrote more about it too. So even Marco Polo did not necessarily say that he observed dinosaurs, but he alluded that he did, and that the Chinese were hunting dinosaurs. Imagine what kind of creature leaves a track in a beach or on the sand along the shore, that is so big that it is if a beam of wood, a tree trunk were being pulled behind a horse to leave that kind of a track. Well, he's describing a lizard-like creature, and it would have to be so large that it would leave a track in the sand in this way. So are we to just simply dismiss, all these legends, the fact that all of mankind's tribes have these legends of these dragons that mankind fought as mythical? I don't think that's rational. I think the far better explanation is that man did coexist with dinosaurs, as many other evidences elude, including geology. And it's simply a fact that man did coexist with dinosaurs. I think to write off all the legends and the ancient depictions that man made of accurate depictions of known species of dinosaurs is a fault. Thanks. That's my time. So much, Nef. Appreciate that. We will now kick it over to Tom Jump. As I mentioned, it's funny that you guys have both been on the channel numerous times and you've never crossed swords before. So first time, very excited to hear it. Tom, the floor is all yours. Okay, so did dinosaurs live with humans with the exception of birds? No. When talking about evolution versus creation, the first thing you need to realize that the debate is not how scientists resolve issues in science. Scientists don't care about debate because words aren't evidence. So nothing my opponent said is actually evidence. It's not evidence against evolution. It's not evidence for creation. It's just stuff made up in his head. None of that is actually evidence. It's just post-hoc rationalization of things that you see, but none of it actually makes predictions. It's just, hey, we see stuff. I can make up an explanation for it. Therefore, my explanation is correct, isn't evidence. So science is built on empirical evidence of things occurring in the world, not things we make up in our heads. It's not just we make up rationalizations and that counts as evidence. It's not how it works. So theology and philosophy are resolved in debate, but science isn't. Science doesn't care about debate. It cares about evidence. So what is evidence? If we see a cup fall over, what could have caused that to happen? Well, maybe the wind knocked it over. Maybe somebody bumped a table that the cup was sitting on. Maybe it was a mouse or a squirrel or a bird, psychic powers, magic, a god, a ghost, invisible unicorns or aliens. Maybe the entire world was created five minutes ago with the cup already laid on its side and the memories of us seeing it fall are a losery. There are infinitely many ways to explain what caused the cup to fall over and all of which except one are imaginary. So for something to count as evidence, what we need is some way to filter out the imaginary explanations and leave us with what is reasonable to believe. Now all of the infinitely many explanations can explain all past and present data. So you can look at the data right now that we see like the cup has fallen over and then you can post talk explain that as being clearly there is a magic leprechaun that knocked the cup over. So anyone can explain why the cup was knocked over just by looking at the past and present data just making up an explanation. But none of that is evidence. In order for it to be evidence, you have to be able to make future testable predictions. You have to look at the evidence that we see today then make a prediction about something we don't know yet. Then that has to be made confirmed through testing. And if you can confirm your tested predictions that is what counts as evidence. So you look at the past and present data, you don't just explain it because anybody can explain it with anything, magic leprechauns, you have to use that explanation to make predictions. And if those predictions about the future are true, then we have a reason to believe it is correct. So all of the things that Neff presented, none of those were predictions, those are all looking at the past data and making up an explanation. Okay, we can make up lots of explanations for all those things. I can say magic leprechauns caused the footprints or I can say they were faked, which is the consensus in the scholarly field because they don't look anything like human footprints. Or, and we can say the pictures are just, they're not at all accurate, they're just made up pictures. What is big enough to cause the size in the sand of a print that looks like it's being dragged by a tree, whatever, an alligator does that. Dinosaurs don't do that, dinosaurs don't leave those kinds of tracks, dinosaurs stand up and their tails don't hit the ground. What does is an alligator and most of the pictures you see, they show look like alligators, not dinosaurs. They are not at all accurate in any sense. They have a few things that are analogous, but they're not accurate at all. I mean, the more modern like 1960s pictures are actually significantly more accurate than the things like the cave drawing, which is a line that he supposedly is somehow a bronzosaurus. Like, okay, that makes sense. Yeah, that's accurate. Like what's, it's a line. Apparently we can just interpret lines to be exact replications of dinosaurs in the same sense. No, that's not evidence. The fact that people drew pictures, he's in evidence. Just to just post-talk rationalizing things to make it fit your data. What is evidence is future testable predictions and evolution and natural selection and the dinosaurs and geology, those make tons and tons of testable future predictions. We've discovered millions of fossils around the world, exactly where we predicted them to be and they connect together perfectly and we know how old they are and we know how old the earth is and we know what the age of the layers are and all of that and all of those different fields, they all coincide in conciliance to prove that no, dinosaurs did not live with humans except for birds. And the only evidence that counts is future testable predictions which evolution makes and creationism doesn't. So none of the things Neff presented is evidence at all. It's just him post-talk rationalizing the things he wants to count as evidence. Like he looks at data and says, oh, I like this, I'm gonna count this as evidence. Like, no, it's not how evidence works. You have to make predictions and he doesn't at all. So one thing that he mentioned, the Ploxi River tracks. So if you just go to the Wikipedia, go down to the section on the criticisms. Some of the tracks are faked. These footprints do not represent the way human footprints would look in mud. They also do not accurately reflect. The changes in the way humans would walk as a result of their size. Other footprints were genuine tracks but showed features inconsistent with human footprints, supporters of the human footprint theory claim that the tracks showed authentic mud push-ups, okay. And the time period for humans and dinosaur tracks. You just read the Wikipedia, fully explained, academic journals, all of the things he said are just proven false. It's just him making up stuff and none of it makes predictions, none of it's actually evidence. The one side, the only side that has evidence is evolution in dinosaurs and old earth. Saying that dinosaurs lived with humans is essentially no different from saying magic leprechauns created the world five minutes ago. It's just complete nonsense. Gotcha, thank you very much for that, Thomas. We will now switch into open dialogue mode, folks. So thanks so much. And as reminder, forgot to mention, if you happen to have a question, you can fire it in the old live chat. And if you tag me with at modern day debate, makes it easier for me to make sure I don't miss any. And also, super chat is an option. In which case, if you do a super chat, it allows you to not only maybe make a question toward one of the speakers but also a comment to which they would get to respond to and it would push your question to the top of the list or in the Q and A. So with that, thanks so much. The floor is all yours, gentlemen. I teach you, I want to ask you a couple questions. I took a couple of notes here about your presentation. First of all, you didn't provide any evidence. You just gave us your ideas about this. You tried to dismiss the Pilexie, Texas tracts as not looking human and having the wrong gate that they do look human and they do have the right gate. You think it objectively falls, no. You also said, historical evidence offers predictions for the future, but that's not always the case. So that can't be applied here. You also, you said they're not accurate depictions of dinosaurs I would beg to talk. You said the history thing. So science makes predictions. I didn't say history makes predictions. Well, we're talking about historical evidence. I'm talking about science. I don't give a shit about historical evidence. Well, that's what we're talking about. Dinosaurs don't live today. It's got to be historical. No, no, there's no such thing as historical evidence. Historical evidence is like testimony and manuscripts. This is science. There's no historical evidence there. It's just... Well, I think it's understanding what is meant by historical. But you also said that they were not accurate depictions. I would beg to differ, but say they're extremely accurate. You don't get an opinion on that. That's the scientific journals I just read. You don't get an opinion on that. You also mentioned mythological creatures as an argument against accurate depictions of dinosaurs. None of them were accurate. Today, it's not about evolution. It's not about evolution. You mentioned birds or dinosaurs, but fully modern birds like flamingos, owls, cormorants, and apotross, and others are now known to have coexisted with dinosaurs. So how could a bird be a dinosaur? I'm not hearing any evidence, TJ. I'm just hearing your ideas. The evidence is the science. The science is the evidence. I didn't present the science because there's just a bunch of it. I did present, like, yes, we make testable predictions about bones. Those were correct. That's evidence. That's more evidence than you've ever had in all of... Well, that's an idea about it. No, that's not an idea. That's evidence. That's literally evidence. So again, evidence is future testable predictions. What is it? Evidence is future testable predictions. Scientists made predictions about if evolution is true and if dinosaurs existed at... No, evolution is how dinosaurs came to be. So that's an important part. If evolution is true and dinosaurs existed at the time period, we predict them to have existed given evolution, we will find these bones of, like, tectonic exactly in this location, at this exact depth and within this area, we discovered it exactly in that depth, at that area and nowhere else ever. And that's true for all of the testable predictions of dinosaur fossils. We make testable predictions, we get them right. That's evidence. You have evidence. I'm gonna disagree about the fossil record. I know you believe that. A lot of evolution is repeated. But again, this debate is not about evolution. It's theoretically plausible that evolution happened and dinosaurs still coexisted with man. In order to disprove the physical evidence that I've provided, you're going to have to prove there's a gap in time between man and dinosaurs. You haven't done that. I don't have to do any of that. You have to do that. That's when you presented this evidence. No, no, I don't. Nothing you presented is evidence. It's just garbage. Here's something I see and I'm gonna make up an explanation is evidence. I don't have to disprove that. I can just say, you're making shit up. Okay, it's disproving. That's all I have to do to disprove everything you said. No, not at all. Because as I just pointed out, TJ, it's completely theoretically possible that evolution could be true, which Gorgino, I don't believe that. He has nothing to do with evolution. It's not about evolution. And dinosaurs coexisted with man because they didn't go extinct until after man came off. That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to the point. Okay, Neff. Hold on. Let's give him a chance to respond. I promise we'll come right back to you, Tom. So unless you show there's a time gap between man and dinosaurs, you haven't discredited anything. No, no, I don't have to do that at all. Again, so all of the stuff you said I can discredit in one simple thing, you're making shit up. Like none of that actually is evidence. You're just looking at it. Oh, that's not evidence, TJ. No, no, that's your idea. Stop, stop, Neff. All I have to do to disprove everything you said is say you're making shit up. No. You're just looking at stuff and just making up stuff. All right, TJ, follow me on this, okay? Let's imagine the evolution is true. No, Neff, it has nothing to do with evolution. Right, that's what I'm trying to tell you. That's not part of my argument. No, I'm trying to help you understand something. Follow along with me, just patronize me a second. Let's imagine evolution is true and dinosaurs did not go extinct until 3,000, 2,500 years ago. That means they would have coexisted with man. So theoretically it's possible that man and dinosaurs coexisted on that basis alone, but for you to prove the evidence, the historical physical evidence that man coexisted with dinosaurs, you're going to have to show that there is a gap in time between man's existence and dinosaurs going extinct. You haven't tried that yet. Yeah, that's all in the geological record. We've already done that. But what is the evidence of that? The testable predictions, which are already presented at the beginning multiple times. So we know the geological record, we know testable predictions, we know what layers the fossils are on and we know what layers the humans are on. They're not on the same layer, different age groups. Okay, so if we don't find a human and a dinosaur together in the same strata, how is that proof that they didn't coexist? Because we don't find even certain species of dinosaur in the same strata as others, but that doesn't disprove they didn't coexist. You don't disprove something, you prove it with evidence. So the evidence is that we make novel testable predictions. We say if evolution is true, we can predict which layers we will find specific fossils are on. Again, this is not evolution. Evolution is just how they make the predictions. So it's not about evolution, right? You have to show a gap in time between man and dinosaurs. Oh my God, Neff, stop. Evolution is the thing we use to make the predictions. I know you believe that. The predictions are the evidence. It's not about evolution, evolution is just the mechanism we use to make the predictions. So we make predictions, the predictions are correct. That's the evidence. We win, you lose. You have nothing, we have nothing. Evolution doesn't make accurate predictions, but again, DJ, you're moving the goalpost. This debate is not about evolution. It's about man not coexisting with dinosaurs. You're going to have to prove that there is a time gap between man and dinosaur to show. Neff, I do not understand the basic concept of evidence. So Neff, evidence is testable predictions. It doesn't matter if we're using evolution or a magic A-ball to make the predictions. We make predictions. We get them right. You don't. I've heard you talking about predictions, but you haven't shown one that demonstrates there's a difference in time. Yes, they have. Between man and dinosaurs. The geological record proves. And hold on, hold on, DJ. Let me finish your thought, please. So to argue against that, let me just point out that CO accounts disappears from the fossil record for 75 million years. And yet it's a living fossil. Does that prove that it didn't coexist with the creatures that we know it must have because it's not founded in no strata with those creatures? No, it doesn't. So that's not true that CO accounts didn't exist with the creatures that we know today that it did. Again, Neff, you're not understanding how evidence works. Evidence is novel testable predictions. Saying we didn't find certain fossils at a certain depth isn't evidence. What is evidence is saying I can predict that this fossil will only be found on this layer in this area and that being correct. That's evidence. We use that for lots of fossils. And CO accounts discredits that idea, so do others. That does not. That just shows you don't understand how evidence works, Neff. That wasn't a prediction. It would only be a disproven if we predicted that it would only show up on this layer and didn't show up on all the other layers. Of course it has ancestors on the layers. That's not a prediction. So TJ, is it not true that CO accounts is missing from the fossil record for 75 million years? I have no idea. I have no research. Yeah, it is true. It doesn't make a difference. It is true. It's not evidence. It's not evidence. So it disappears 75 million years ago, right? No, that isn't evidence. Why do you keep saying this? That isn't evidence. Well, because TJ, I'm trying to help you understand that your idea about the fossil. Neff, you don't understand anything. That isn't evidence. You keep saying random facts that are not evidence. That doesn't help your case. I'm trying to keep us from talking over each other constantly. I know, but you keep saying random things that have nothing to do with me. Well, I know you don't have to agree with me, but you need to let me finish this statement. So since CO accounts and other creatures disappear from the fossil record for 75 million years and we know they coexisted with those creatures throughout that 75 million years, if we apply that to your ideas about dinosaur fossils, because we don't find a human and a dinosaur fossil in the same strata doesn't mean that humans didn't coexist with dinosaurs. Oh my God, Neff. Again, that's not the argument. Neff, that is not at all anything I said. So my argument isn't, we don't see these, therefore they don't live together. My argument is, is we make testable predictions. We get them right. So we can say what layers certain species live on, what layers they don't live on. So we have reason to justify our belief that humans live on this layer and animals don't. It's not just that we see fossils here and that's just the end of the evidence. That isn't the evidence. The evidence is the testable predictions, Neff. We can make predictions and say, these things live on this layer, these things live on this layer. We can predict where they will be found and we discover them being found there and only there. And that confirms the entire theory. So anything that isn't specifically supported is already supported by those other testable predictions. Well, how does your prediction fail when it comes to creatures like Seola can't? It didn't. That was never a prediction. No one made that prediction. Oh, really? Yes. Okay, a little historical information here. Evolutionists claim for decades that Seola can't win extinct because it was not found. Okay, so now you're denying history. You know what I'm just gonna argue. But you haven't shown that there's a time gap between man and dinosaur and that's what you must do to be able to show that man didn't. That's the geolite director, that already does that. Because we have all this physical evidence that man accurately depicted dinosaurs and we have human footprints and with dinosaur footprints and the same strata of the Plexie, Texas riverbed. Nope. Here's an amazing fact for you. Every geological sedimentary strata in which we find a dinosaur fossil was one in which was deposited by moving water, rapidly moving water. And that creature was buried. No, that's false. Quickly, okay. No, that's false. So because hydrology experiments in the laboratory proved this, TJ, that the sedimentary strata with particle size distribution find distinct boundaries between each other with an absence of erosion is what is produced in the lab is exactly what we observe in the geologic column. We know that every single fossil of a dinosaur was one that was buried in sediments rapidly, right? Okay. No, that's false. Here's the problem you got. The sedimentary strata in which you find a dinosaur sits right on one, on top of the one that doesn't have a dinosaur in it. You're saying false things that have no evidence. And here's the problem. The boundary between those sedimentary strata is paper thin in most cases. No, false. Because they were created by moving water. And if that's the case, your whole idea about the geologic column just disappears. Again, so all of that's just false. No, we don't only find fossils in geological column like that. No, that's false. We find fossils in lots of different areas and lots of different places. I didn't say we found them only in one place. I said, we find them in sedimentary strata. Yes, we do not only find them in places that were suddenly collapsed through water. No, we find them in lots of places, like carpet. Well, we don't find them in soil. Yes, we do. No, dinosaurs are, to make a fossil, it has to be, it's encrusted in rock. Do you know what that is? Yes, yes, yes, that's right. And then I'm right. No, you're wrong. You cannot say, we only find them in this one area, one kind of environment. No, that's wrong. Can you cite a dinosaur?