 People of the internet, welcome to modern day debate. Tonight we are debating, is radiometric dating reliable? And we are starting right now. So I am the host of, I am Kaz, host of Atheist Edge. Tonight we are joined by King Crocoduck and he is facing David McQueen. And we are also joined by Donnie of Standing for Truth Ministries. He's gonna be joining me in sharing the moderation duties tonight as he has graciously helped to put this whole thing together. And tonight each person will be getting 12 minutes of opening statements, eight minute rebuttals. We are then gonna take a five minute break where I will go through the whole spiel, 40 minute open discussion and then five minute closing arguments. And then we will take Q and A. So I believe King Crocoduck will be going first and King Crocoduck at your first word, I will start the timer. All right, give me one sec. Sure. And we're gonna be sharing this screen. All right, I will say when, just give me a moment. Can you see the slide? Is it full screen? Yes, not full screen, but we can see it. It's not full screen, on my end. Casey, if you click slide show, around the fifth or sixth button, if you click from first slide or from current slide, it should make it full screen for you if you wanna try. I did a five, normally doesn't give me a sec. Sorry everyone. Book out, King, to make notes about what you say. Good. No worries. While he's doing that, ladies and gentlemen, oh, wait a minute, we might have it. All right, we can see it. Is it gonna be full screen? I put slide show on, is it? You can see the slides, we just can't see them in full screen if that's... Casey, if you were to click from beginning over there in the top left hand corner, let's see if that works out. Yeah, I did. Oh, you did? Yeah. And it's not showing up full screen, that's kinda odd. I guess that's just a limitation. If you click in the bottom right corner where the show slide show button is, I don't know if that might help. I think I might know what the issue is. You could zoom in like that, but when you shared screen, Casey, did you click entire screen or did you just click one window? I clicked one window. Yeah, I think typically if you click one window, it'll for some reason not allow you to go full screen. I'm not sure why, but I've experienced that in the past. Okay, in that case, let's do this and do a slide show. All right. All right. Are we good? There we go. All right, go ahead and start the clock. Okay, so my argument for the reliability of radiometric dating rests upon three points. First, the fact that decay rates are derivable from fundamental physics. Second, that results are independently reproduced to via a plurality of dating techniques across a wide range of space and time. And third, the fact that anomalous results are so sparse relative to the volume of consistent results that even if we couldn't explain the anomalies, we'd still be justified in using radiometric dating. So starting with number one, geocrinology rests upon the phenomenon of radioactive decay where certain types of atoms spontaneously transformed from one isotope to another. There are a bunch of dynamic variables associated with each individual decay event, including most importantly to this discussion, the exact point in time when a particular decay event will occur. Radioactive decay being cast in terms of fundamental particles is beholden to quantum theory, which expresses these kinds of results probabilistically. Consequently, we can't predict exactly when and how a particular atom will decay. What we can predict are the likelihoods of decay events and we can therefore give point estimates for things like the average rate of decay across large numbers of radioactive atoms. And that's exactly what the gamma theory of alpha decay does pictured on the screen. Derived by George Gamow in 1928, this was the first successful application of quantum mechanics to nuclear physics. You can use it to accurately predict the average lifetimes of spherically symmetric radioisotopes that undergo alpha decay. For isotopes that don't obey the spherical symmetry that Gamow assumed when he derived his equations, you can apply the relevant corrections to get the right answer. And in the time since Gamow published his results, other physicists have developed even better formulations for the fundamental physics of alpha decay as well as other types of decay. Now, the ability for radioactive decay rates to be accurately predicted by quantum physics is important because before anyone even enters a laboratory to empirically measure decay rates, it's already possible to know what the decay rate for a particular radioisotope is going to be just by knowing certain things about that isotope, like its atomic number and fundamental constants like the charge of electrons. So here's my first challenge to creationists. If radiometric dating is unreliable, then why are we able to calculate the decay rates of radioisotopes from first principles in fundamental physics? The same physics that makes predictions that have been validated to 10 decimal places, the same physics that's responsible for the existence of digital technology and thus the world we live in today is the exact same physics that tells us that when the building blocks of nature are organized into atoms with such and such properties, they're going to take such and such amount of time to decay. And then those predictions end up agreeing spectacularly with measurement, leading us to conclude that the earth is billions of years old. My question is, why? Okay, moving on to point number two. Radiometric dating consists of a plurality of techniques across many different radioisotopes, all with unique parent-daughter ratios and decay rates. Published results consistently converge on the same conclusions using different methods over and over and over again. For example, the geologist Gary Dull-Rimple made the table on the left, summarizing the results from research he led in 1993 when he sent tectite samples to different laboratories in Australia, Canada, France, and California. These facilities independently radiometrically dated the samples via a variety of techniques, including argon-argon, potassium-argon, rubidium strontium, and uranium lead. The results as summarized by the table clearly converge upon the same tight spread of values on the order of about 65 million years. And you can find a bunch of other tables throughout the geochronological literature like this. The table on the right is another one by Dull-Rimple, this time summarizing his 1991 paper in which chondrite meteorites were independently dated at laboratories in Germany, the UK, France, California, Minnesota, Missouri, and Denver. And with a bunch of different techniques that once again converge on the same result, this time of about four and a half billion years. These kinds of tables also exist for cross comparisons between radiometric dating and other techniques, including tree-ring dating, ice core dating, and various types of luminescence dating. You get the picture. So here's my second challenge to creationists. If radiometric dating is unreliable, then why do scientific publications consistently report the same results across different techniques, labs, and even decades? Here's a table published by Bouvier et al. 15 years after Dull-Rimple's chondrite publication, where they dated a bunch of different chondrites from all around the globe, and their results still match Dull-Rimple's from the previous decade. They also got about four and a half billion. Why? Why are these results so consistent with each other? Before I go on, could I please get a notification of how much time I have left? I can't really see that screen right now. You've got about 723 seconds. All right, perfect. So here comes my third and final challenge to creationists. And this one is a little bit more philosophical. So consider the image on the left. This is a mammographic image. It's an X-ray of a woman's breast. And I'm very sorry, modern-day debates looks like you're gonna be demonetized. According to a recent study from UC Davis, about half the women who get screened for breast cancer will, over the course of 10 years, get at least one false positive. This is one such example. Now, to a radiologist, these little white dots over here, they can look a lot like calcifications, which can potentially lead to a misdiagnosis and perhaps even unnecessary medical intervention, like surgery followed up by radiation therapy. But in reality, these little dots are just imaging artifacts. And they can come from a lot of different sources that are not related to cancer. They can come from dust getting into the mammograms filters. They can come from dead pixel elements in the mammograms detector. They can come from traces of zinc and other metals in tattoos or powders or deodorants. The list goes on. This kind of thing is not limited to mammography. All diagnostic imaging modalities can produce bad results under certain conditions. So given this fact, is it reasonable to dismiss medical imaging as unreliable and stop giving people x-rays and MRIs? Should we stop screening high-risk women for breast cancer? Should we stop sending trauma patients and confused old people who walk into the emergency room with half their faces sagging into CT scanners where they're gonna have loads of radiation dumped into their bodies and possibly get suboptimal images that might potentially lead to misdiagnoses? And the answer I think is very obviously no. The occasional presence of anomalies is not a compelling reason to abandon a measurement technique, yet this is exactly the kind of silly reasoning creationists will routinely apply to radiometric dating. The creationist case against radiometric dating typically rests upon a laundry list of a dozen or so anomalies in which it's asserted that radiometric dating has failed. Now, those of us who have been debunking creationism for many years can pretend to be ignorant and naive. We can pretend not to know that the living mollusk shells and the recently killed seals that can't, Hoven likes to point to have been subject to the reservoir effect. We can pretend not to know that the Velosevich mammoth that Eric Hoven likes to point to did not, as he claims, have two different parts of its body dated differently, but was in fact two entirely different mammoths. We can pretend to be ignorant of the Xenocris contaminating Steve Austin's Mount St. Helens samples. We can pretend to be ignorant of the fact that Andrew Snelling's quote unquote wood pictured here, which was almost certainly an iron concretion, was porous from groundwater contamination. We can pretend to be ignorant of the memory artifacts that arise from the submission of inappropriate samples to places like geochron labs and on and on and on and on. In short, let's come to this conversation with the naive supposition that creationists don't have a well-documented track record of either misreporting the results of radiometric dating omitting the context when sharing scientific literature that identifies limitations of certain dating techniques or just outright misapplying dating methods in a way that are well understood in the literature. Let's be absolute chumps for a minute and just take the dozen or so examples that they've been peddling for the past three decades completely at face value. What inference should we draw from this? Have these anomalies falsified radiometric dating? If you're very naive and very ideologically motivated, then yes, they have. Congratulations, debates over. David wins. But if you have at least a couple of brain cells to rub together, then think back to what I said about medical imaging. I very much doubt that the ridiculous standard that they apply to radiometric dating where occasional bad results supposedly disprove the entire enterprise are equally applied to medical diagnostics. So why did they adopt this kind of attitude towards radiometric dating? This is a rhetorical question. We already know why, but putting that off to one side. In medical imaging, if you get a bad result, the reasons for this are usually obvious to the trained eye. And so it is for radiometric dating. But even if we were naive and didn't know the reasons for these kinds of failures, with the presence of the dozen or so examples from the laundry list of anomalies that creationists have been peddling for the past 30 years, be sufficient to disqualify radiometric dating, given the literal thousands of independently reproduced results that have accumulated over the same period. And this is without even mentioning the fact that you'd need to revise fundamental physics to justify this kind of move. So that's my third challenge to the creationist. Please explain why you think a handful of anomalous results poses a serious challenge to the thousands of consistent results reported in the literature. Okay, so to recap, decay rates are derivable from our most predictively precise theories in fundamental physics. The results of radiometric dating are independently reproduced via a plurality of dating techniques across a wide range of space and time. And the small handful of anomalies that creationists like to point to are so overwhelmingly outweighed by consistent results that even if we didn't have plausible explanations for these anomalies, we would still be justified in treating radiometric dating as being reliable. Okay, that's my opening statement. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much, King Crocoduck for that 12 minute opening statement. We are now moving into David McQueen. You've got your 12 minute opening statement. Whenever you're ready, the floor is all yours. And when you need to share your PowerPoint slides, let us know, and I can get those going as well. And just make sure to unmute yourself, Professor McQueen, or unless Kaz can do that on his own. The unmute. Whoops. King, I want to thank you very much for your willingness to debate this important topic. I know that you have debated a number of people on standing for truth. And I begin that to you as a compliment. From 1983 to 1987, I was a full-time flood geologist for the Institute for Creation Research in California. My boss at that time was Dr. Henry Morris. And if you can see behind me here on my board, he spoke a lot about dating in his 1961 book, another all through his life as he debated. And he taught me to divide my debate into two parts. First, a part where I'm thankful for the parts of King Crocoduck's presentation and then to transition to the argumentative side. And so I want to transition now. Donnie, pull up my slideshow please. Our choice tonight, King, is do we prefer radiometric dating or dating redheads? I appreciate your comments about mammography because over the 50 years of our marriage, I have been married to a redhead. Next, next slide. Not anyone in this picture, but nonetheless a redhead. Next, my atheist opponent, so he claims, doesn't understand the value of the three problems that affect all dating methods. Potassium argon, uranium lead, whatever. First problem is unknown original conditions. It's a good time to comment that I was trained at the University of Tennessee with a degree in geology in 1974. And then at the University of Michigan with a master's degree in economic geology in 1979. I hope the audience will notice that I only go to schools that have good football teams, so that's good to know, isn't it? The second problem is a problem of leaching and deposition, and as a geologist, I'm certainly well qualified to comment on this. And then thirdly, in the period from around 1972 to 1975, I was Bob Gentry's lab assistant at the very famous Oak Ridge National Labs, and he has a very clear critique of the first slide that King put up. Next, does my opponent understand history? What about history? How can we understand people and events? Next, here is a very nice piece of granite. If your slide is, if your screen is clear enough, you'll see black biotide and white felspar. You'll also see some felspar in there that's called orthoclase felspar, and then the clear is quartz. Bob Gentry had a challenge to Dahl-Rimple. He certainly expressed this challenge to Professor Dahl-Rimple at the Arkansas Creation Evolution Debate, I'm sorry, the Arkansas Creation Evolution Trial in the early 80s. And he said, well, if what you say is true, Dahl-Rimple, produced for me a fist-sized granite, and I'll stop writing papers to science and nature. Next, how King can we know the initial amounts of uranium, thorium, potassium, argon, rubidium, and on and on and on. My first debate about this issue of Creation Evolution was in my high school days in the late 60s. And then as I got my degree and worked for Gentry, I understood that this issue of the initial amounts of radioactive elements, U-238 and its decay chain, that's a non-trivial matter. Next, excellent book I'd recommend to you, King, is by Vernon Cupps, came out in 2019. He uses a different argument. He calls it closed system assumption. And notice what he says. So critical to all radiometric dating methods is this closed system assumption. And notice the comment, it strains credibility when applied over millions of years. Now, why would that be? Next, this is a rock hammer there for scale in a very interesting unit that we can come back to later on. But you see the brown color, King, that's either leaching or hydrothermal additions. And so as I have gone in the field since the early 70s, I've routinely seen as an economic geologist this kind of alteration. It's either by leaching or, as you see, close to the large white area in the middle by hydrothermal additions. Next. And now we come to this reference. I would encourage everyone viewing this channel to write this down. Gentry, my old boss in 1974 wrote an article in science. Now, was this in a Sunday school paper? No. Was this in an internal creationist thing? No. This was a peer reviewed science article. There's the volume number and the page number. And here we see a picture of radioactive halos. Now I was working for Gentry during this time, next. And here's a uranium halo and maca. And Gentry's favorite example is, imagine you drop an alka-seltzer into a glass and then as the effervescence proceeds, you freeze it immediately. Remember that I am arguing for a 6,000 year old universe in Earth. And I'm arguing that the days of creation were literal consecutive 24-hour days. Now, I want to challenge or respond to, if you will, what the King has to say about Gentry's work. So would you give the screen back to me, Donnie, please? Okay, let me put this up on my whiteboard here. And here's a direct critique of what was said. Kaz, is that visible to you, the Gentry reference 16? Can you read that? Barely, but I can make you bigger, one second. There you go, that looks good. Is that better, Kaz? Go ahead, yeah, that's better. Now, I challenge what King said. Let me get my notes out. You know, he's quoting references that go back to Gamov, about Alpha to K. And he's using this doll-wimple argument which he's used for years about cross-contamination. And his references of 1991, 1993, are contemporary with, I'm sorry, are later than Gentry's original article. But this is a very important point. I'm sure Crocoduck understands from the calculus that he showed that the Alpha to K theory revolves around the differential equation the differential, rather D lambda over lambda where lambda is the rate of decay. How much time do I have left, please? Got about a minute and 53 seconds left. Okay, good. I would argue that King has misunderstood D R over R plus D lowercase R over R. It turns out this is the large R is the atomic radius. The lowercase R is what Gentry taught me to measure in those radioactive decay rates, in those radioactive halos. And that's the radius of that halo. Well, it turns out if you give the evolutionary community every benefit of the doubt, there's still a 35% error in this decay rate. But in contrast, if you look at this particular footnote, if you take creationist assumptions, got about a minute left, which he got through peer review, I might add, there is actually no proof of the constancy of lambda through geologic time. Now, you have to understand that the data that Gentry had came from by touch and fluorides worldwide. How would you answer that, King? Okay, that concludes the 12 minute opening statements. Gentlemen, thank you so much for the visuals and lots of interesting points to discuss. So we're now moving into the round of rebuttals. We've got to be exact eight minute rebuttals. And so we're gonna hand it over to King Crocoduck. We'll make sure Kaz gives you a one minute warning when you reach the seven minute mark. And whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. Okay, well, thank you, David McQueen, for your opening statement. I just wanna correct a potential misunderstanding. I don't believe I mentioned cross-contamination when I discovered Gamma's derivation. That equation or the set of equations that he came out with are the result of the application of something called the WKB approximation to a certain effect in quantum mechanics called quantum tunneling. What the fellow you were working for, I'm afraid his name escapes me, the one who published these papers. What he ended up doing, it seems, is he empirically measured the polonium halos and he made an effort to express the relationship between the radii of these halos and something related to the decay rates. And of course, since you have variance in the radii of these halos, his suggestion is that, therefore, the decay rates are varying. This is problematic for a number of reasons. Number one, these apparent polonium halos, they don't necessarily issue from, sorry, it was generally his name. They don't necessarily issue from what he's suggesting. The more parsimonious explanation is that radon gas is leaking through the rocks and that the radon gas decays into the, which we'll call it. Sorry, give me one second here. Just wanna check my notes. My fingers. I'll get back to it, but basically the answer is radon gas. Well, we'll probably talk about it in greater detail during the discussion part. I wanna get to everything else in the meantime. How can we know the initial amounts of uranium? So David brought up the question of, if we don't know the original, how do we know the original conditions that lead to radioactive decay? Well, first of all, the raw amounts of parent and daughter elements, those aren't quite as important as the ratios. So, whatever amount of initial parent material there is over a given volume, that's really neither here nor there. It's the ratio of that to the daughter element. And in the case of something like a Zircon crystal, where you are looking at the ratio of uranium to lead, the Zircon, it's not possible during the formation of these crystals for lead to be introduced into the structure. So you can be reasonably certain that whatever lead you end up finding there, that's the product of uranium decaying into lead, not the result of lead subsequently contaminating or lead somehow working its way into the crystal. The structure of the crystal, it can't form with lead already in it. The condensed matter physics just don't allow it. Concerning the leaching and deposition. So in the Dull Ripple samples that I cited, and I noticed in the paper that he soaked initially his samples in hydrofluoric acid. I am not a geologist, so I'm not entirely familiar with how they treat their samples prior to sending them out for analysis. But as far as I can tell, they disqualify or they treat to the extent that they're able to, whatever items, whatever minerals or whatever rocks there they're looking at, they treat those or they disqualify those on the basis of certain features that they have. So I think that that begins to address, but I'm not entirely sure whether David's gonna find that convincing, so that's probably something also for further discussion. Let me see my notes here. Polonium halos, initial amounts. One second. King, you're making me cry with your argument, so let me wipe my eyes here. Give me a second here. Yeah, so one of the decay products of uranium is radon. Radon is a gas so it can migrate through small cracks in the materials and polonium halos are only found associated with uranium, which is the parent mineral for the production of radon. Moreover, polonium halos are typically found along cracks so the more parsimonious explanation for the existence of these halos and for their varying radii is not that decay rates contrary to what we see in fundamental physics and contrary to what I've shown in those tables, it's not that they're varying wildly all over the place, it's just that the radon is producing this. Radon is decaying into polonium. Let's see, how much time do we have left? Three minutes. Okay, well, I guess it's worthwhile to talk a little bit about some of the consequences of accelerating decay rates to the extent necessary to produce the results that are conciliant with the creationist account and that is that you're going to end up sterilizing the entire earth with the amount of radiation that you're producing. You're taking 4.6 billion years of geological history and compressing it into 6,000 years. So you're gonna have this outlooks of lethal ionizing radiation that's going to irradiate everything on the planet and just kill it. You get these kinds of silly results when you start messing around with the laws of physics and you start messing around with this or that fundamental constant. I mean, not even looking at the physics of it, not even looking at Gamma's equation, like let's say you wanted to change the charge of the electron to make this process feasible. So you change the charge of the electron vastly to whatever hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude necessary to produce the creationist answer. And now you end up with a situation where stable atomic nuclei can no longer form. The structure of the universe literally just becomes kaput. So depending on how you approach this problem, whether you decide to tinker with fundamental constants or whether you decide to just make it decay faster and then you have this outflux of lethal ionizing radiation that sterilizes everything on the planet, it doesn't seem to me that anything fruitful comes of it. It seems to me that the most parsimonious explanation for these things is just the known physics and we don't have to invent any new physics to explain this. Okay, so I think I'll see the remainder of my time. Okay, thank you so much there, King Crocoduck for your eight minute rebuttal. David McQueen, we're now going to hand it over to you for your eight minute rebuttal if you need to look to your whiteboard there. We can certainly put you full screen as well for the audience's sake. And whenever you're ready, eight minutes, we'll give you a one minute warning at the seven minute mark and go ahead. Okay, let's go ahead and make me a full screen here. As a professional scientist, I don't appreciate you referring to what I think as being silly and especially what Dr. Baumgartner and Dr. Andrew Stilling, two colleagues of mine for many years to characterize their information silly. So we're to begin with the mistakes you've made. Well, let's start with the polumium. Many of you that are watching may not remember your high school chemistry. I'm not talking about plutonium here. We're talking about the element polonium revolving around polonium 210. The argument that Gentry put forward that I think after my 30 years of study of this as the years have gone on is a point very well taken. Some of these polonium isotopes have very short half lives. As a matter of fact, less than three minutes. And this is why Gentry loved this Alka-Seltzer in water example where there was a rapid crystallization of the granites. Now, I appreciate King's comments about not being a geologist. So he may not know about a process that is called eutectic crystallization. And later on, I'll spell this out better, but eutectic crystallization on a phase diagram. At the University of Michigan, I had to suffer through a semester of physical chemistry. It was so bad at Michigan, so hard that there were bumper stickers that said, honk if you pass piquin. So sadly, I actually do know what I'm talking about about this. It was very, very difficult class, but on a phase diagram, this point here is called the eutectic. Now, what does that mean? The eutectic means that a mineral like biotide or a mineral like fluorite, two of the minerals that react to halos are found in. When you reach that eutectic point of pressure and temperature, they immediately crystallize. And so there's nothing magical about the rapid crystallization of things like polonium 210. But now let's not miss the point. As Gentry wrote his papers for nature and science, these were peer-reviewed papers. He went back to his background as a Seventh-day Adventist and he looked back and when Genesis records that God created the heavens and the earth, and then on the third day, there were additional rocks formed, he viewed that as happening very quickly. So from my viewpoint as a Christian, King's name should be spelled lowercase k-i-n-g. As an atheist, he views himself as being king of a certain domain, I guess you would say. But he's not the true king of the universe, capital K-i-n-g, and that's the king Lord Jesus. He's the one that created everything. And so Gentry would put in his papers, comments like, what was the word he liked to use? He would use the word providence as a substitute for God, I guess. And he would talk about changing the paradigm of nuclear physics, very, very important point. But let me go on to other things he said. It is true, and I acknowledge, I've never actually done it, why? There are probably only 15 labs in all of America and another 30 labs worldwide that do radiometric dating. I did field work in Zimbabwe, Africa, the old Rhodesia in 2019, and I was a visiting professor at the University of Zimbabwe, and I spoke to the lady that was the chairman of the department to get her radiometric dates done. She had to go to South Africa to get them done. So it's a very closed circle. It's like a cult, it's like the Masonic order or the Illuminati or something like that are the people, again, they're probably less than 200 people that actually understand how you take a granite and use hydrochloric acid, begin to dissolve everything out. And then notice the words that King used, lower case King. He said that Dalrymple chose from those hydrochloric acid-etched zircons, the ones he thought would be best. Oh, really? One of the arguments that King has made throughout this debate is that the zircons, in which Gentry found the samples in, do keep in mind that when I worked for Gentry, in the early 70s, he taught me actually how to make these measurements. And so I have actually, with my own eyes, looked down a microscope and seen a halo. And my goal, Gentry gave me, was to use grit to get right down to where the zircon was. And that gives you a true diameter. Well, what's my point? My opponent has argued that there are always cracks and somehow the radar on gas gets in and something that one minute left, thank you. But in my own observation, let me use another color, looking in biotides, which are silicates, phylo-silicates, in fluorides from pigmentides around the world. When I actually did this, all those knots that I worked for him part-time, I saw no cracks coming through. When I did my sections, and when he did his sections, which are part of this 1974 paper that I've referred to, he didn't use uranium halos or polonium halos near cracks. And so that counter argument is simply not true, King. Back to you, moderators. Okay, gentlemen, that concludes both the opening statements and rebuttals. Great technical debate so far. I appreciate the work you've both put into this. Now, before we get into everybody's favorite part of the debate, the 40-minute discussion portion, lots of excellent points to discuss between Professor McQueen and King Crocoduck. We're gonna have Kaz here. He's going to give us the honors of going over a few announcements and reminders. All right, thank you so much, Donnie. I really appreciate it. So I just wanna let everybody know, especially if it's your first time here, joining us on modern day debate, that we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. And we want you to feel welcome, no matter what walk of life you're from. And if you have a question or a comment for one of tonight's debaters, fire into the old live chat and be sure to tag me at modern day debate. Super chats will go to the top of the list and they will get priority. All we ask is that you keep it civil. Attack the argument and not the person. Insults will not be read. And that goes for the general discourse in the live chat as well. So our invaluable moderators are keeping an eye on the live chat. So if you are disrespectful, if you are spreading hate speech, you will be kicked or banned. So please be sure to keep it civil. Our guests are linked in the description below, whether you're listening on YouTube or via the podcast. So if you like what you're hearing, be sure to click those links. Check them out right now. Hit the subscribe button because we have plenty more live debates coming your way, much more juicy stuff for you to ingest. In fact, tomorrow I believe we have Matt Dilla-Hunty is gonna be debating David on whether or not gambling should be illegal. And that's gonna be at 7 p.m. Eastern. So again, please subscribe if you like debates like I do. And I just wanna also mention that debate con two is scheduled for Saturday, November 19th in Plano, Texas. I hope you guys can all see that. It's going to be the tickets are on sale now and that is linked in the description below. There is a crowdfund to help get this all taken care of. So please, if you love debates, if you can possibly make it, if you just wanna help James get this off the ground, then please check out that link in the description. Donate if you can get the tickets while they're still hot. You see all those big names right there on the screen. So I know you wanna join. I know you wanna help out. So go ahead, check that out right now. And that includes all of the announcements that I have right now. If anybody is on the screen right now that would like to mention anything they have going on on their channels, please take the time right now to go ahead and do so. I'll make a comment before Donnie does. Kaz, it may be interesting to you that my undergraduate minor was political theory. And so maybe I'll have to come back on your channel in the future, not as Professor McQueen, but rather as someone who has a 40 year interest in political theory. Okay, that sounds great. That would be awesome. We would love to have you. Donnie, do you have anything going on on your channel right now? We have a couple more minutes before we get back into the debate. Well, I appreciate the announcements and reminders there, Kaz. Lots to look forward to here on modern day debate. James Coons is doing an excellent job. So make sure if you're not yet subscribed, please hit that subscribe button, hit that like button and share around this content as critical thinking is incredibly important. So I also host a debate channel. And yes, we've got several major events coming up in the world of theology, soteriology, the nature of God and creation versus evolution. We've been hosting an Evolution Debate Challenge series for 2022. We've done about 50 of them. So this week we've got the big clash of the Titans debates coming up on Tuesday. Mark Reed, who's been here several times and Kent Hovind, they'll be debating, is there reasonable evidence for evolution on Tuesday? And then later on in the week on Friday, we've got Matt Slick. He'll be debating Jake the Muslim Metaphysician. So both fantastic debaters, very knowledgeable. They'll be debating the nature of God, specifically the Trinity. So if you like debates, like we see here on modern day debate, you can find many more kinds of debates over on my channel as well. Kaz, thanks so much. Thank you. Mr. McQueen, you do get your break in. You are good to go for the rest of the debate. Is that correct? Well, ordinarily, Donnie allows me to take a break at the one hour mark. So I'm good until I notice we've been on now about 50 minutes. Can we go another 10? Well, what we were gonna do, Professor McQueen, is we were going to allow you to have your five minute break here before we get into the discussion because we didn't want to have... Okay. So what we'll do is we'll just... Unless you wanna go right into the 40 minute discussion now. Oh no, I noticed that you've given King and I the opportunity for a five minute summary. That'll be at the end of the two hours, right? Is that correct? Okay, good. It'll be a five minute summary, a concluding statement right before the audience Q&A. So what we can do is right after the discussion, the 40 minutes that we could start now, we can do a bit of a break there if you needed a bathroom break or anything like that. Yeah, please. If you would drop my video, I'll go get some hot tea and be right back. In the meantime, can we please share my screen in preparation for the discussion? Sure, we can do that. No problem, let's go ahead and do that. I'll just start the timer again and let you have the floor for a moment. Go ahead. Oh, I wasn't gonna say that. Oh, you just wanted to put it on the screen? Okay. Yeah, David and I will talk and I'll offer some of my opinions as a professional scientist, as one who is currently working in science on some of the things I do and appreciate about implications of conspiracies. So that'll be, I think, the first topic of discussion. And Casey, if you wanted to take some time to go over anything new on your channel, anything going on, what you've been up to, it's up to you. Yeah, I've been super busy, so I haven't been terribly active. I do monthly Patreon live streams and some people seem to enjoy those, but I will be getting more into the creation of videos where I'll be talking about, well, the sort of stuff that I'm putting up on the screen concerning how we can assess the likelihood that people are selectively reporting measurement outcomes in different disciplines. So I'll be doing some meta science moving forward and keeping up with my philosophy of science and some physics as well. Sounds amazing. I definitely want to check that out personally for me. So again, ladies and gentlemen, if you do like what you are hearing from our guests, they are linked in the description below. So please do check those out, whether you're listening on YouTube or the podcast, we are linking them everywhere. So please do check them out. And I do want to also just once again, throw back up on the screen for everybody who didn't see earlier tomorrow's debate. Matt Delanti will be once again, gracing the halls of modern day debate to discuss gambling and whether or not it should be illegal with David and they will be debating that tomorrow. And then once again, the debate con is on for November 19th in Polano, Texas. Tickets are on sale now. Get them while they are hot and support James by donating to the crowdfund that is also linked in the description below. And you see, I see, who's on there? Aran Ra, Matt Delanti, Destiny, Stardust and Daniel Hakikachu and I'm not sure who else is on there. Sorry. Let's see, what's going on in the live chat? Let's see what you guys are talking about. How are we looking on questions, Kaz? We got quite a few coming in. Actually, we could certainly use some more. So if you have questions or comments for our debaters, please fire into the old live chat once again and Super Chats will go to the top of the list. Have plenty of room on that list. So if you have a question that you are sure you want the debaters to respond to, a Super Chat is a great way to be acknowledged. Well said. And with the topic tonight, is radiometric dating reliable? So let's do our best to keep those questions to the topic and related topics too, because radiometric dating of course applies to the age of the earth, the global flood. And so whether you got a question for KC or Professor McQueen, the Q&A period is always a great continuation of the debate. So I always look forward to that portion of these formal debates. Oh yeah, let's see who's still in the live chat. I've got, well, I know General Balzek was in there. Shout out to him. Eric Church, shout out to you. Who else do I recognize in there? Praise I am, shout out to you. Not a lot of familiar names. Looks like we got a solid mix as well. Back gentlemen, thank you for that break. Have some sad news, have some sad news, my coffee machine broke, but we can go on. Okay, so we are gonna kick it into the open discussion now. Let me put 40 minutes on the clock and I'll give it back to you, Donnie. Okay, that's 40 minutes, gentlemen. Let's keep this cordial on topic. And as I like to say, sophisticated. I'm looking forward to this. We got a lot of excellent points on the table for discussion, so we'll keep it as equally timed as possible, of course. We do wanna keep it free flowing and organic and focusing on one topic at a time. So since David ended with his eight minute rebuttal, King Crocoduck, we're gonna give you the floor to kick us off here in the discussion portion. The floor is yours, gentlemen, go ahead. Sure, so David, you mentioned that there were some things that you as a scientist didn't appreciate me saying that there was some silliness going on in creationist accounts of how the world works. One thing that I also as a professional working scientist don't appreciate is the suggestion of conspiracies taking place without the supplying of evidence to support this. But that's okay because right now we can talk about evidence of conspiracies because believe it or not, this is actually a question that can be addressed. So it seems to me that your suggestion, and you can correct me on this if I'm mistaken, is that this cult of 200 or so people in the world who do the radiometric dating, they massage the data in such a fashion as to produce cross-confirmations of the sort that you see on the tables in front of you. Is that correct? Well, let's look at it this way, my friend. All of these people have jobs that in the American context or above minimum wage, they are sending children to college on the money they make. And so if on a Wednesday, they would get a sample, let's say a bi-tide from South Africa, and they would run the numbers on it. And the actual age of that bi-tide would be 6,000 years. They would immediately reject it for two separate reasons. One, their paradigm is like yours. You are an old universe, old earth evolutionist yourself. And so they would reject it on the basis of paradigm. But secondly, they would reject it on the basis of they would lose their job. They would have no money for their children to go to college. And so I'm not saying that every radiometric dating individual in Australia calls my former chairman at the University of Zimbabwe and says, tell me what lab that you're sending your samples to in South Africa so that I can make sure they're part of this worldwide radiometric conspiracy. No, they don't do that. But I would suggest to you that these are the reasons that certain young universe, young earth dates are rejected is because they lose their job. They lose their job within a month. So it's not a top-down conspiracy with some shady individuals sitting in a volcano barking orders at these labs. It's a bottom-up thing from perverse incentive structures is what you're saying. It's, you know, and I have tried to do some research on you, King. And I guess I'm a bit annoyed at you for two reasons. One, you portray yourself as an atheist. So from my talk to an atheist over the last 50 years, that must mean that you've picked up every rock on earth, traveled to every planet. And so you know that God is not hiding under some rock someplace. Correct vocabulary for you, I would think my friend would be agnostic. You know, Darwin's bulldog, Huxley, invented the word agnostic. So I guess I'm troubled that I don't even know your first name. You claim to be- I'm just gonna jump in here, David McQueen. I wanna make sure we're fully utilizing the 40-minute period. So as interesting as a debate would be on atheism versus agnosticism and other issues, let's really focus on radiometric dating. Casey, if you'd like to respond to any of that, go ahead and then we'll allow David to pick the next question or topic. Okay, I've got some other things here. Okay, go ahead, Casey. Okay, well, if David is correct, and for example, these tables by Dalrymple don't include all the data he collected because he arbitrarily excluded dates that didn't conform to his expectations, then we should be able to find statistical residue left over from that decision. So I'm gonna give you an early Christmas present right now, David, and I'm gonna show you how you can actually go about exposing the kind of fraud that you're suggesting is taking place. I appreciate, I'm surprised you would even acknowledge Christmas as an atheist, but go ahead. Sure, so I'm gonna apply some techniques that are typically reserved for meta-analyses to his data, and I think this move is defensible given that functionally, the studies are very similar to meta-analyses in that they involve point estimates for certain properties of large populations of atoms, and these estimates were acquired by different groups of researchers using a variety of different methods. And I think it's also reasonable to treat mean measured ages the same way clinical trials might treat effect sizes because the math is the same, and we can interpret the term effect size to mean something more general in this context such that we can include single group summaries under that umbrella. Point being, whatever index you choose has no bearing on the computations I'm about to share with you. So what I did was I generated a funnel plot of the standard errors for the measured KT deposit tectide ages against their mean values, along with the results of a regression test to determine the extent to which this plot is asymmetrical. And as you can see, P is greater than 0.05, so the funnel plot is symmetrical and the test does not provide evidence for the selective reporting of outcomes. If there was selective reporting of outcomes, at least within that data set, what we would expect to see is that there is a non-negligible relationship between the effect size that they want to get and the standard error associated with that effect size. The effect size in this case, just being the mean ages that they calculated. So I did the same thing with the data involving the chondrites, and once again, there's no evidence of publication bias. Now these tests have been around for decades, and if you really wanted to, you could do something like this. You could search Google Scholar for papers published over the last 10 years, for example, for potassium argon dating for igneous rocks from the Permian period, and you could perform a meta-analyses of these dates, including tests for publication bias that are even more rigorous and comprehensive than what I've shown here. And you can determine whether the ages arrived at are legit or whether they're just an artifact of selectively reported data. Now, you keep saying what I've shown here, but I just see, I don't see anything on the screen. Are you saying that you're sharing a screen that I'm not seeing? Yeah, is it not showing up? We don't see much time. I finally see it there. It's back up now, there you go. It looks like it's up now. Oh, so, okay, so this is what we're doing. That's okay, you can go on because I've been statistic to death in my life from my Tennessee days, so I do understand what you're saying. Go ahead. I'll chart back up. Yes, yes, so you can apply these funnel plots. You can produce a meta-analysis. You can look for, like I was saying, potassium argon dating for igneous rocks from the Permian period. It doesn't have to be that, just look at the past, say, 10 years or so, get a whole bunch of papers that produce dates and perform tests for publication bias that are even more rigorous than whatever I've shown here. Whatever I've shown here is just kind of like a first step. But the best part though, Dave, is you can do this without ever setting foot outside of your house. All you need is access to the internet, which you seem to have, some open source statistical software and a means of accessing publications. Boom, you're set. I'm aware that there's a new open source that is the letter R, an open source statistical package. I'm not sure I'd call R new, but sure. Go for R, it's a good one. Certainly new for me. Okay, may I respond to this? Of course, yeah. We wanna make sure it's free flowing, so. Yeah, right. We're responding to each other. Let me pull some data on a couple of different things. George Bond is a name I hope you're familiar with, King, as one of the co-hosts on Standing for Truth. He pointed out to me that a 2018 post on physics.org made a very interesting argument against a radiometric dating. The dilution of atomic carbon-14 by volcanic carbon made the dates for tree material from the Taupo eruption appear to be 40 to 300 years to old. Now, that's a small error there, but let's read what it is. Taupo, Taupo, is in New Zealand on the North Island. It's a caldera of a volcano there. It's a very large rialitic supervolcano. It has produced two of the world's most violent eruptions in geologic recent times, and the last eruption is falsely put in the literature as 250 CE, that really should be BC to honor the true king, King Jesus. But anyway, what do you make of the fact that these values for a eruption that they know is 250 years BC, what do you make of the fact that it's 300 years too old, the dating, I mean, the 28th date of it? You know, like I said earlier, you can find a dozen or so anomalies in the literature or creationist examples that they like to point to. But at the end of the day, even if you had no explanation for how any of this could happen, even if the dozen or so anomalies could not be explained, it would still be justified for the same reason mammography is still justified, despite the fact that there are occasionally errors. But I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with my point concerning publication bias and Egger's regression test and phonoplots. Well, let me try to clarify. Let me clarify with another example. I'll just use another example. If you go to a mineralogical website that I use sometimes, it's called webmineral.com. If you go there and you look at the comments there about uranium-led dating. Now, uranium is an element that has isotopes. And the measurement of the U-238 isotope, as you probably know, King, is 4.5 billion years. Well, if that's the half-life, and we're saying that the earth is around five billion years old, why does that not mean that half of all the original U-238 and some of Gentry's work, why would that not be lit? I mean, we've had four and a half billion years. That's enough time for half the original uranium-238 to decay. Now, this is where my background comes in as an economic geologist. I work for the United States Geological Survey in- I'm sorry, David, could I interrupt you really quick? I'm still not seeing what this has to do with publication bias, the accusation of publication bias for the geochronological literature. Okay, well, let me go back. I thought I'd made this clear earlier. Let's see, how could I say this? In 1997, I went to Dalrym Poole's lecture at the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting. And he and his agnostic buddies made fun of Bishop Usher. They actually had a guy come in dressed as a bishop and they made fun of the 4004 BC date that I support. When Dalrym Poole gave his talk, he included his participation in the Arkansas Creation Evolution Debate and also the big debate in Louisiana that went to the Supreme Court. My argument is that these papers that Dalrym Poole put out in the 90s are selective data. In other words- Right, I get that point. I get that, but can we share my screen again? Because I feel like my point's not being understood. Okay. Yeah, and it's shared. You're good, Casey. You're good to go. Okay, so you can see my screen then. Yeah. Okay, so, David, let me simplify this really quick, really broadly. Why is this plot, which is generated using the data from this table on the left over here, why is this plot symmetrical and why is P greater than 0.05? If there is publication bias taking place, if there is selective reporting of data. Let me write this down on my whiteboard here and we'll talk about it. So, can you make this big? What is the Y axis on this thing? The standard error. Okay, this is standard error, okay. X axis is the mean measured ages in millions of years. This is the mean, a Gaussian distribution, mean, Poisson distribution, what kind of distribution? These are normally distributed. Okay. These are from normally- The X axis is what? Effect, what does that say? Effect size, so in this context, that means the mean ages. Okay, and so we've got this cone here and the data point, the data points have got a, are up here at the top. Now, are you saying that the data you've plotted there is from Dalrymple's data? Yes, this comes from the table on the left. Okay, now, these are up here very close to predictions. But what about all these that are scattered all around here? They don't have an R value that's statistically valid. Do they? No, no, this is not a correlational plot. This is a funnel plot. The regression test is not run on this plot. Okay, but what are the numbers at the bottom? The numbers go from, what, 10 up to 80 or something? I can't read the bottom, the X axis. The X axis goes from 62 to 68. Those are millions of years. 62, mean years, to 68, mean years. And what this plot is measuring is the relationship between the measured mean and the standard error and the standard deviation of these results. Now, we would expect if there's publication bias for there to be a non-trivial skew of these results in one direction or the other or just wildly scattered all over the place. But what we see instead is a symmetrical distribution, which means that there isn't really a preference for where they want their data to land. The most precise measurements, which are the ones that are closest to the true effect size, these are converged upon by all of the other data, including the less precise measurements. Whereas for a biased literature set, we would expect there to be a whole bunch of less precise measurements that are clustering around some preferred value. And we can quantify that using the regression test. So what I'm saying is you can apply this kind of test broadly throughout the literature to check for publication bias, but I've applied it specifically to this instance and there is no evidence of it here. Well, I'm guessing you work in the biomedical field because of the data set revolving around mammography. I'm a biomedical physicist. Say it again. I'm a biomedical physicist. Well, that's good to know. I couldn't find that online. When I worked for the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, one of my coworkers was a LSU trained radiation lady whose job it was to calibrate and check the calibration of mammography equipment in Louisiana. And so she found in her going here and there that many of the mammography devices were not calibrated correctly. Now what's my point? My point is I choose to disagree with the data that Dahlrempel published in the mid 90s. Let's go on to our next point, please. But I'm not understanding why though. Like the claim that you made earlier, the suggestion you made is that there's a conspiracy. It's not a top down conspiracy. It's a bottom up conspiracy as we clarified that's the result of perverse incentive structures. They supposedly they don't want to lose their job so they're just throwing out. But then if that were the case, we would see this plot here being skewed in one direction or the other. It would not be symmetrical. And this p value here would be less than 0.05. So what I'm saying here is that this analysis that I performed actually for both data sets, here's the one for the other one. These things do not show evidence of what you're saying to be the case. Well, we're going to have to disagree on that because I've actually been in lectures by Professor Dahlrempel at the 1997 Geological Site of America annual meeting. I have heard him laugh at Bishop Usher. I've heard him laugh at the concept of a young earth. And so he himself is a biased researcher. I'd prefer to leave it at that. Okay, so the guy has preferences and he laughs at people, but like, okay, whatever. I guess this is something we'll just have to put off to the side. Well, what we could do, I'm sorry, go ahead, Casey. Oh, I was going to ask what he thought of my earlier remark concerning radiation sterilizing all life on earth. But I guess. Yeah, I can respond to that, sure. During the last year, George Bond and I have been working on the physics associated with the mantle crust boundary. And so let me answer Lord Case King here, the biomedical guy. I would imagine you're afraid of losing your job should you use your real name on this debate. But that's something to the one side. So let's draw a cross section here of the earth. Let's put a ship up here. And we have the lower crust. And then we have the mantle. George and I have been working on some statistics and some evidence, if you will, from this boundary, there seem to be under the Hawaiian chain and also under South Africa, actually, some objects that are moving up that are called BLOBS blobs. These are zones that are moving up from the mantle into the crust. And from the calculations we've done, King. Is that Lord Case King capitol? That's I understand. From the calculations we've done, when you look at these BLOBS as they move up, they do not match the evolutionary prediction. In other words, they're obviously not millions of years old, but instead they are quite young. Let me see if I have a mile. But David, what does that have to do with the radiation problem? Oh, I'm coming to that. Just give me a minute here. Let me see if I actually have this reference here. I don't have it quickly. What it has to do with the radiation problem is this. If these sort of BLOBS occurred during the year-long worldwide flood, they would then become heat sinks. And so not only in these areas are there obviously a thermal rise, but if you look at the physics of it, these things can cut both ways. So in Baumgartner's catastrophic plate tectonics model, which has the plates moving, not a few centimeters a year, but meters per hour, this is going to allow the heat generated in this area to be taken back down to the mantle. I would refer. I think there's some confusion here, David. I'm not asking for an account of where the thermal radiation went. I'm talking about the ionizing radiation, the ionizing radiation byproduct. Yes, it's true that heat is emitted a relatively small amount for an individual decay event. A lot of people are surprised to hear this, but there's this dose called LD50, which means lethal dose 50. And 50% of the population who get exposed to this dose, they die within a couple of months. And that dose of radiation will release enough heat to warm your coffee mug by only like a fraction of a degree. A lot of people are surprised to hear this because it's not actually the energy itself, the amount of energy from radiation that kills you. It's the radiation, how it distributes through your body and how it damages your DNA through ionization events. But putting that off to the side, it's the ionizing radiation that I'm trying to refer to here. It's the stuff that is flowing through the materials and that is going in every direction on earth and is accelerated to a substantially greater degree than what's happening right now. Because if you accelerate the decay rate, you're accelerating the flux of ionizing radiation. And if you're accelerating the flux of ionizing radiation, especially to the degree that creationism requires, which is like on the order of hundreds of thousands, a factor of hundreds of thousands, you are now delivering lethal doses of ionizing radiation even without the temperature, right? You could do stuff- Well, I see King that you and I share some experiences. I have over 20 graduate hours in toxicology and further training through OSHA. So I know exactly what you mean when you talk about LD50, a dose of radiation or a dose of lead or arsenic that will kill 50% of the population. What I'm trying to suggest is that while George Bond and I do not have every answer, we're moving in a direction where this LD50 calculation that's been done by you and others is simply incorrect, there would not be that sort of dose. But David, it's not just me and others who agree, like the rape project, the group of creationists who got together and tried to address this, they themselves have acknowledged that the radiation problem is unresolved and will continue to be unresolved until some exotic new physics are discovered. This is fatal not only to the people who are living on earth and who get exposed to the cyanizing rate. This is fatal to creationism. Well, see, I beg to differ because of the work that George Bond and I have done. Perhaps one of the things that Donnie can do for me is to post on this debate the reference to the two hour discussion that George and I had, Donnie, about this whole issue of the LD50 being incorrect. By the way, what I mentioned LD50, I'm not saying that the dose of the earth is gonna be at LD50, it's actually gonna be much higher than that, it's gonna be probably closer to like LD99. Okay, what's your next point, my friend? Actually, what we could do gentlemen with the last 12 minutes, King Crocoduck, correct me if I'm wrong, I think you asked the last two questions, this one pertaining to the heat problem or less. The radiation problem. The radiation problem. If we wanted to, we could have David now pose you a question and engage that for a little bit. Yeah, why not? Okay, here's my question for you. Going back to this webmineral.com reference that I'm talking about. If the half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years, and if you were correct that the earth is 5 billion years old, then half of the original uranium, whatever amount, should be converted to lead. I have actually visited lead-zinc mines in Tennessee, it's called the Mississippi Valley lead-zinc deposit, and I have collected there or have been given Galena, which is lead sulfite, others, not me, but others, have said, well, if the evolutionary, if the old earth position is true, you should find detectable amounts of U-238 in these lead crystals, and when they have done this, they have not found them. And then the second thing I'd like you to comment on, it turns out that both Andrew Snelling and I have background in uranium geology, what are called roll-flint, roll-front deposits. Even Bob Gentry had an interest in primary versus secondary polonium halos and uranium halos, but explain this to me. If you go to the Western US or you go to Australia, the uranium-buried minerals are basically uranium oxides. How come you don't find any lead in these uranium minerals? So I'm not sure I really understand the objection, is just to clarify, are we saying that there's a deficit of lead where we would expect half of it to have been, half of it to have decayed to lead? Yes, that's correct. Let me check the uranium decay chain really quick, and I might come up with an answer. So give me one sec here. Gentry documents the uranium decay chain in his book. If those of you that are watching do not own a copy of this book, Gentry died a couple of years ago. I think there's a third edition. This is the second edition. Okay, so to answer your question, uranium doesn't decay straight to lead. It decays into a bunch of other things on the way. There's a read on this polonium. There's mercury. There's a whole bunch of things that it decays to. Let me see right here. But we do agree that it ends up in lead, right? At the end, sure, but you're gonna have a whole distribution of elements along the way it seems. So astatine, bismuth, Italian, some of these are more longer lasting than others. So radium, for example, that's gonna last for 1,600 years. So yeah, there's gonna be a distribution of elements there. I don't know what geological processes might be at work to make it so that, let's say we have some well-defined distribution, right? Of what these elements should be. Yeah, right. Yeah, I don't know what geological process might be in play to sort them in one way versus another in order to produce these kinds of results. I would have to look into it more. Okay, well, perhaps we can debate again after Christmas and come back to this. Yes, I'll look forward to seeing your funnel plot analyses and see if you found any evidence of bias. Let me go to another one of Gentry's papers. I quoted one from 74. Let me flip back here and find this thing. Like, here's one of the piece of equipment I've learned to use over the years, and I on Micro Probe, Electron Micro Probe. He wrote a paper in 73, Ion Micro Probe confirmation of lead isotope ratios and the search for isomer precursors in polonium halos. And this paper I would point out to you, this is in nature, volume 244. And what makes it interesting is his last paragraph, listen to this, King, a very rough estimate of what these results mean is that the present existence of the isomer in the inclusion, he's talking about the zircons, may be obtained because lead 206 sputtered when they put more than 1,000 hertz, let me skip that. One interpretation of these results is that the isomer simply decayed to the point where it was not detected in these experiments. These are examples from an early pre-Cambrian pegmatite in Scandinavia. Now, the reason that that's important, King. It's an interesting interpretation, but go on. The reason that that's important is Gentry traveled to Europe and he got samples of what the evolutionary community was quite convinced for pre-Cambrian pegmatites. Pegmatite is a vein in a granite that's really quite big. But when he came back and did his own analysis at Oak Ridge, it's yet to be determined whether this information is consistent with the proposed isomers and so forth. But the point is for me as a geologist, he was looking for decay products in an early pre-Cambrian, let's say a billion years ago, but they were not detected in these experiments. So how could you have a billion years of decay and not have this show up in a ion micro probe study? I'm not entirely sure what the argument is. Could you clarify what it is that's missing and why it's important? Yeah, and let me do some teaching here. LD99 is a pretty big number. Well, so is the factor by which creationism is relative to the actual age of the earth. Divide the 4.6 billion by 6,000. Yeah, that's a big difference. But anyway, to teach you about this, if you have a granite, the Eugenius Rock granite, that is ordinarily associated with mountain building and ordinarily assumed to be very old. For example, in the Grand Canyon, which I've hiked five times in four years, when you get down to bottom back in the 80s, you'd find a granite there. And it's often associated from creation standpoint with rocks formed during the creation week. But that's the one side. Wait, is that an unconformity? Oh no, no, I'm drawing here. Let me try to put a scale here. This is a scale of one meter. And I've cut this thing, this is granite on this side, but there's a vein going through it that has very large crystals in it. And these are crystals of the same phylo silicates, the same feldspar, the same quartz, QTZ, that you find in the granite, except they're really big in the pigment type. So in geology, we have a standard rule that if a vein cuts through, so we'll call this number one, if this vein, which we'll call number two, is cross-cutting number one, it means that it's younger than the host. And so the way it ties into this argument is when Gentry went and found these isomers in the pigment type, evolutionary theory, if these things really are a billion years old, the isomers in here should show significant decay products, but they did not. I see, so are they located in the wrong place relative to their apparent age? Because I think the typical explanation for this is that there's an angular unconformity that places something that is apparently younger in a location, stratigraphically, that makes it appear older. Well, let me clarify that. This is a cross-section one meter. If you go to many places on earth, here's a tree and you look into a hillside, you will often see rocks like Precambrian rocks tilted up with their foliation going down this way, and then there'll be sedimentary rocks here. This is what we call an angular unconformity, not this. But we want to turn this into a geology lesson here. Let's go on. Where are we now? Are we ready for some questions from the audience? It is now, one minute left. I'll let you take that, King. Only one minute to ask a question. Maybe it's best if we just go straight to the Q and A. Yeah, I think you're right. Well, gentlemen, let me jump in. We do have our five-minute concluding statements where we can wrap up our thoughts, wrap up our points. Fantastic discussion, very technical, but very enjoyable. Lots of good points on both sides and lots of good discussion. I'll definitely be re-listening to this. We've got a ton of awesome questions from the audience pertaining to this important topic, but before we get to those, let's hand it to Casey since you started us off with your opening statement. Let's give you the first five minutes, and then we'll give David, you get five minutes, and we'll get into some audience questions. Go ahead. Cool, can you see my screen? Yes, yeah. All right, it's full screen. It is, looks good. Cool, so I'm just gonna quickly reiterate the basic points. First of all, decay rates are indeed derivable from fundamental physics. Dave McQueen mentioned earlier that there's gonna be a 30% deviation. That might be true of Gamow's original calculation if you apply it to certain types of nuclei. Like I mentioned earlier, he made the assumption that atoms are gonna be spherically symmetric, but the reason you have radioactive decay in the first place is because you have this kind of tug-of-war process taking place between the electromagnetic force and the strong nuclear force. And as you increase the number of protons in the nucleus, this tug-of-war becomes more and more strained and depending on the configuration of these neutrons, or sorry, of the protons and the neutrons in the nucleus, this straining effect extends out to the actual geometry of the atom such that the orbitals are no longer necessarily spherically symmetric. So for certain types of radioisotopes, the assumption of spherical symmetry is not warranted and you have to apply corrections. And once those corrections are applied, then you get the right answer. But the bottom line is, once you model, the better you model these things from fundamental physics, the closer you get to the experimentally observed values. And I think that this fact is devastating to creationism because now you're not just at war with geochronology, you're also at war with quantum mechanics. Second, the cross-confirmation, we talked about this as well. It seems that when you send this stuff out, Dave says that there are only about 200 people in the world. There aren't that many people, but I think 200 is an exaggeration. I think it's smaller than what the number actually is. The number isn't huge. Any narrow field of expertise is gonna have a finite number of people. In North America, the number of medical physicists is like 10,000, so I don't know if that's small enough to count as a cult. But the point is, if you wanna check for publication bias, the tools are available to you. You can check for them. Based on the analyses that I've done so far, it doesn't look to be the case that there's publication bias, so I'm not sure that the suggestion of bias and conspiracy hold up given this information. But I have, here are some results from Beauvier et al from 10 years later, and they match the ones from 15 years prior. So it's table one on the right. You've got four and a half billion years. That's the age that you get using all of these different methods. And then using a completely different method, using lead lead dating, he gets the same results and it's not just like one measurement, you can see there's, this is only one table. There are actually a lot of tables like this and they consistently show four and a half billion years, four and a half billion years, four and a half billion years. So it's just not plausible, given the cross-confirmation of all of these different techniques, all of these different labs, cross all of these points in time, given the conjunction of that with these funnel plots that there is a substantial degree of publication bias taking place. And then finally, the philosophical point, like you can gesture to individual anomalies, you can point to details here or there where something doesn't appear to make a great deal of sense and where you have to continue to do more reading and more digging into it until you see, oh, okay, there's a plausible explanation, right? The polonium hails, there's a plausible explanation involving the decay of radon, a gas that slips through the cracks for whatever else David brought up that I might not necessarily have had an answer to right away, you bring a geologist in and they'll be able to say, well, here's a plausible explanation that doesn't violate everything we know about physics. The point is if you're going to suggest a kind of revolutionary overthrow of the existing science, pointing to individual anomalies here and there, it's just not gonna cut it, you have to do better than that. And yeah, the conclusion- Just listen to the minute left. Yeah, that's fine. The conclusion in my view still stands, this picture is still correct. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much, King Crocoduck for that five minute concluding statement. We are now going to hand it over to David McQueen. David, whenever you're ready, you also have a five minute concluding statement. Go ahead. Good, I wanna take the first minute to talk about some of King's misunderstandings. If he goes back to Gentry's 1974 paper and he works through reference 16, which is based on alpha decay theory, he will discover that it does not match. It simply does not match the critique that Dahlrempel and others have given about the rate of radioactive decay. He correctly pointed out that if you give the evolutionary community every benefit of the doubt, the DR over R, capital D, lowercase R over R, is 1.4, which gives for uranium 238 a 35% error. Now that's a big error when you're trying to figure out the geologic column. But if you follow Gentry's logic at the bottom King of that reference, you'll find that under creationist assumptions, there is no proof at all that the decay rate has been constant. The second point that he makes about the issue of consistency from one person to another. I must admit King, I am gonna look up that reference that you gave for the person that went back to apparently Dahlrempel's data and confirmed it independently for four and a half billion years. And so now I wanna go into a different way of argument and that is the philosophical way. My point bears on this whole issue of mammography. Keep in mind that although there are problems with the mammography and the interpretation of the x-rays, there are women that really do have breast cancer and there are women that never have had it. And so the conclusions of philosophical arguments are important. I would suggest to you that King's overall viewpoint claiming to be an atheist is just foolish. He hasn't turned over rock in the universe. He has no idea that God might be hiding behind Jupiter right now. He doesn't know that. So he's an agnostic. He's not an atheist. And when you go to the Bible as a source of information, I would present an argument for Q and A time that the Bible is a historical document. Now, is it a book of science? No, of course not. So that when you read, and for example, Second King's chapter seven, that Elisha said, here ye the word of the Lord, archeologists have been able to find evidence of both Elijah and Elisha. And there's plenty of archeological evidence to prove that Jesus was a real man. The question that we have before us tonight is if the Bible's a trustworthy document, then there are some real implications. I know that on your website, you have a real interest in politics. There are arguments about the Christian's relationship to government. When should we obey and when should we not? But going back to the point of this argument, I'm concerned that King and other old Earth evolutionists that are agnostics are missing the evidence that our world gives. President Ronald Reagan had a one-liner that was pretty good. He said, he once brought in a bunch of atheists to eat a fabulous meal at the White House. And after they had finished the meal, he said, well, I hear you all are atheists. So he went out to the Rose Garden. And when he brought them back in, he said, when you ate that meal, was there a cook, you think? Oh yeah, there had to be a cook when you see the beauty of nature, there has to be a loving God. Okay, thank you so much, David McQueen for your concluding statement. Again, gentlemen, Casey, David, thank you for an excellent debate. We're now moving into audience questions. And Kaz, I'll hand it over to you and kind of lead us into that. All right, so thank you so much, both of you for such a spirited conversation. And we will go ahead and kick into the Q&A. And standing up for truth, you do have your copy of the questions. I will take the evens, do you like the odds? Sounds good? Sounds good. I wanna let you guys know in the chat that if you have a question for Once Nice Debaters, we do have plenty of room on the super chats list. So go ahead and send those in if you want to make sure that your question gets addressed. And I will keep an eye out on the live chat for that. So in the meantime, the first question, I guess I'll take the odds, you'll take the evens, so I'll go first. The first super chat comes in from Surgeon General for $5. They say, I wonder if my bones could be dated using this and testing specifically for plutonium decay that is from atomic bombs we tested here in the USA? Oh yeah, they do radiometric dating. I don't think inside of living tissue, but they do radiometric dating related to fallout. Isotopes, I have seen literature for that and that also works. May I make a comment about that also? Oh here's my cell phone. We'll get the last word. Say it again. Sure, but King Crocoduck will get the last word. Yes, I understand. You know, here's my cell phone, which I turn off. If you wanna find out the age of the cell phone color, you just go on the back and you can figure out that the iPhone 6 was made this year, iPhone 7 was made that year. And you see, you're making my point, even though maybe you don't wanna make my point, that the people at Apple are reliable when it comes to talking about the date that a cell phone was made, just as the Bible is reliable in talking about the age of the earth being 6,000 years old. Casey, you can have the final word. Question was for you. King Crocoduck, are you there? Now he did mention before we went live, Kaz, that he might have had a internet issue once or twice, so this could be one of those moments. That's okay, if you wanna go ahead and just ask the next question and we'll see if he hears it. If not, we will just move. Okay. We'll play right here. Surgeon General, thank you for that super chat. Next question comes in from creationist crybaby, $5 super chat, thank you so much for supporting this channel. So the question is for you, Professor David McQueen. The rates of seafloor spreading are made using GPS measurements. Why do the GPS rates agree with estimates of rates based on radio isotopes? Crybaby, you and I have spoken in the past and you are incorrect in what you say. Let me give you a reference that you can go to. I worked for the United States Geological Survey for many years and I was based in headquarters at one point in Washington, D.C. And I had some interaction with people that were working at the NASA Goddard facility in Maryland. Well, one of the scientists there, and this would have been, I guess, 1980, was named Lohman, Paul Lohman, L-O-W-M-A-N. And he published a number of papers that directly bear on what you're saying. He got data from a unit, like a radio unit in the USA, and then he got data... Say it again? That's all right, I'm sure I am. And so he got also data from Greenland, I'll put a G here, this is USA, and then he got data from, I guess, the west coast of Ireland. And he actually shot these points. Now, many of you probably know that Iceland is in the middle between Greenland and Ireland. And so the Mid-Atlantic Bridge goes through that area. And, Pry-Baby, if what you were saying was true, Paul Lohman should have seen the evidence of separation along the Mid-Atlantic Bridge. But what did he find? What did he find? He found that the error rate, talking about the statistics that King likes so much, that the error rate was within the standard deviation of the standard deviation of the mid-Atlantic Bridge. And so what he found, Paul Lohman. King, are you there? Yeah, I'm here. Sorry? David, we're just gonna do a quick audio test on King Crocoduck here. I think he might be having some issues. No problem. Maybe Crocoduck, if you wanna give us a quick audio test right now. I check one, too. It's coming in pretty choppy on my end. What about you, Kaz? A little choppy, but I think it was there. I can't hear him on my end. Okay, my check one, too, is this better? No. Sorry, but it's not better. It did warn me before forwarded my modernism in pretty spotty play. So I do apologize for that. You understand. I think we should just press on with this if this maintains. Can we move on to the next question? Sure, yeah. Are we done with that one? Unless, David, if you wanted to wrap up your thoughts, I'm sorry to cut you off there. No, I was done. There is evidence that in the past, the continents have separated, but there's not evidence that in our modern world, they continue to separate in the zone between the Mid-Atlantic and Iceland. Okay, sounds great. All right, the next question is coming in from Haight Stairs for $10. They say, David, why do you think about the, what do you think about the mounds of literature and publications that debunk and criticize Gentry's work, mainly for being short-sighted and not taking everything into account? Do elaborate, please. Yeah, I'll be glad to elaborate on that. When I worked for Bob Gentry between 1972 and 1975, I myself was a geology student at the University of Tennessee. And so some of the ways that Gentry talked about things, like his use of the word provenance, weren't really geologic kind of words. I told him during that period of time that if he's going to look at halos from, I think it's a famous locality called Wulsendorf in Europe. If you're going to look at it there and then you're going to come to the Grand Canyon, GRCA, Grand Canyon, and go down to the rocks in the Zoroastra and other parts of the Grand Canyon, and you're going to talk about uranium-led ratios and polonium 210, you need to put it into geologic vocabulary. And so some people, and I think appropriately, have criticized Gentry's style of reference, if you will, in this book and in some of his papers, where he talks about this, for example, the one that I challenged, Lord Case King with there a few minutes ago, this one from 1974, let me find it again. See, when Gentry writes his sentence to his buddies that are physicists, it's pretty reasonable, you know, he talks about the present abundance of the isomer is less than 10 to the minus third of that in lead 206. Then he goes on, one interpretation of these results is the isomer has simply decayed to the point where it was not detected in the experiments. Well, it should have been detected, but listen to how Gentry describes it. These samples were from an early Precambrian pigmentite in Scandinavia. And so as a geologist, what I would have preferred Gentry to put there is that the Wulsendorf area or whatever area this was in Scandinavia was at latitude and longitude this. It was found adjacent to Cambrian Ordovician's Lurian. In other words, I wanted more geologic detail, but he was not concerned. All right, standing for truth. You wanna go to the next one? We might wanna just keep the answers. I mean, I don't know how many more questions will come in. We don't have a big list, but I don't know if a lot more will come in. So we might wanna just try to limit our responses to maybe a minute or so just to try to move in. Thank you. I understand, it's a big question. I do understand, I'm sorry. Thank you, Kaz. I actually took a nap today, so I can go to two hours, 30 minutes, if you want to. Oh, by all means, I understand. Okay, guys, I appreciate it. Let's move on to the next question. Before we do, how do I sound now? Do I sound any better or am I still chopping? Much better, I can hear what you're saying. Fully improved. And therefore, if Casey, I'm not sure if he wanted to respond to anything or should we just go right to the next question that is going? Honestly, I was scrambling for much of that to get my equipment working, so my apologies. Don't worry, just glad that you got it figured out and it looks like we can move along smoothly. So this next question comes in from Samir Farsane. Thank you so much. $5 Super Chat, thanks for supporting the channel. Question for Crock, are you fine with using the remanagen, I'm not sure if I said that right, summation in brackets. He puts one plus two plus three plus four to infinity equals zero to prove the cashmere effect, then use that to prove quantum fluctuations. I'm not familiar with that technique. I mean, I don't have a problem with the cashmere effect or with quantum fluctuations. They've been observed, they're a thing. Remanagen, I'm not terribly familiar with the calculation being referred to. I'm very skeptical that the sum of integers does anything other than diverge, but maybe there's some Riemann-Zeta stuff going on that I haven't looked at. So no answer, sorry. Gotcha. And then from Samir Farsane once again for $5, they say at King Crockaduck, how do you explain petrified trees standing upright through layers dated millions of years apart? Did the trees die that slowly or layers are the same age? I think this is the Pauley-Straight tree argument, isn't it, where the trees were rapidly- Yes, that's what it is. Yeah. Yeah, so there aren't multiple sediments. There are not multiple sedimentary layers. This is all one mixed layer. So I don't believe that they were actually dated differently. It's been a while since I looked at that argument. You can check my response to Eric Hoven when he came up with it. This was years and years ago. It was in the fifth Eric Hoven commentary. If you wanna take a look at that, I give a comprehensive answer then there, but right off the top of my head, I don't recall the details. I just remember that contrary to the creationist claim, it was not multiple sedimentary layers that these trees were contained within. It was one big layer. Kaz, am I allowed to make a comment? Yes. To that? Go ahead, David. In Middle Tennessee, there are Pauley-Straight fossils that some names that you may know, people like John Mackay from Australia, he and I have gone there together. And around Nashville, Tennessee, around Nashville, Tennessee, there is a outcropping of rocks that contain the cold measures. And in that area, let me ask Mrs. McQueen's help. Shirley, would you bring me this map near the microwave, please? I can actually show the audience what I'm talking about here. Thank you for that. Here is the King and Bytesman map of the United States. And is where Nashville is. This here on this side, I can get my hand around. That side is the Mississippi Delta. But anyway, the end is where Nashville is. And you'll notice the blue color there. That is the color of the sediments around Nashville, including some, what we would call cold measures or cold seams. So with my own eyes, King, I have seen a layer of coal. And I must admit I have to pause. I think that this distance here, might be 10 meters, actually. There's a layer of coal here, a poly straight tree that really is going through all these layers. And if you take Steve Austin's PhD dissertation at Penn State, 79, he talks about a loxinous coal and autoxinous coal. A lot of movement moving whole units versus coal that's formed in place. There's no evidence of peak down here. There's no evidence that this tree grew. So look into it. Sure, but frankly, I wouldn't trust Steve Austin to make me a turkey sandwich. Ah, well he might not allow you. We really didn't let King Coggeduck have the last word on that one just because then we should move on. I mean, there's not much to say about this particular case because I'm only familiar with the Canadian context and I believe the Yellowstone context. The poly straight argument as I've been presented with it pertain to this kind of thing happening in Nova Scotia and near Yellowstone. The Nashville case, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to learn that it's the same story as with the other two. Which is that it's not actually multiple distinct layers. It's just one big layer. Okay, yeah, I can get to the next question. Thank you for the comprehensive answers, Casey and David. Next one comes in from Coffee Mom. Coffee sounds good right about now. $5 Super Chat, thanks so much. And the question is, I don't see it specifying anybody. We'll read it together I guess. Can you describe the differences in methodology between the 1970s and the 2020s? Maybe it's a question for the both of you. Well, I wouldn't know. I wasn't alive in the 1970s. So whatever might have been true in David's experiences in the 70s might not necessarily be true today but I wouldn't be able to comment on that since I wasn't around. Appreciate it. Yes, I'll be glad to comment on that. King, I would challenge you on this point. Is something wrong just because it's old? No. Darwin's publication was 1859. He was preceded in the 1830s and others by I'm a substitute science teacher here in Louisiana and when I open up the biology book or we all use biology book, they sing the praise of Darwin all how he is the father of evolution and 1859 is so wonderful. So just because Gentry published in the 70s and just because Dahl Rimpel and others published in the 90s and tell me again the name of that guy that you referred to that redid some of that statistics. There was Dahl Rimpel, of course, his data and then there was another slide you put up. Yeah, let me find the name really quick. What is that guy's name? It's like a French or something. Yeah, yeah, it began with Bovier, 2000. Bovier? I'm gonna look into that but the way I would answer that for the caller is just because something is 50 years old doesn't mean it's not right. Yeah, I wouldn't claim that to be the case. I'm just saying times change, techniques change, paradigms change, it's just life. Gotcha. Okay, from Samir Farsane for $5, they say to King Crocoduck, how can you prove that daughter elements like lead and uranium weren't already present in samples when it formed, you can either deny or confirm? Yeah, so looking specifically again at the case of uranium and lead, the formation of zircon crystals are, they're based on condensed matter physics and if you look at the math for that specific case, there are only certain allowed elements, the certain allowed energy thresholds that have to be met in order for these crystal and structures to form. And in the case of uranium lead dating with these zircon crystals, it's not possible for them to form using any conventional methods, at least that I'm aware of that allows lead to be present inside of this crystal structure. So the only way the lead gets there, the only way lead becomes part of that structure is if it's initially uranium and then it decays into lead. Gotcha. Am I allowed to comment? Yeah, you get the last word, David, since originally it was for David, the question right, Kaz, or? No, I was working on Crocoduck actually. Okay, David, go ahead and then we'll give Casey the last word. Well, the error that King is making is the error that Darwin and so many in the 1800s made, they assume that the present is the key to the past. And so they accepted the paradigm that things in the past happened long ago, very slow using erosion and sedimentation rates that we see today. As a young earth creationist, I take the viewpoint that things happened in the not too distant past, 6,000 years, but happened catastrophically, very rapidly. And so this question of how do we know, well, we measure modern uranium decay rates at Oak Ridge and it does come up with 4.5 billion years for the half life. But the failure is that many scientists now recognize that the present is not the key to the past. You cannot go to the close of Dover and sit in your lawn chair and see the erosion of them and get any idea how they actually eroded or were deposited. Thank you. I think David has misunderstood the problem here. It's not merely that we think that there are these general large scale, higher order processes that have been the same over time. Of course we know that's not true. It's the laws of physics that remain constant over time. And in this case, condensed matter physics, which allow only for certain configurations of elements under certain conditions. And in the case of Zircon crystals, if you can identify a mechanism that allows a Zircon crystal to form with lead already in it, I think you'll have the ghost of a point. But as far as I can tell, it's just not physically possible. Okay, thank you very much for the responses from the both of you. Next question that comes in is from TLO. Thank you for the $10 Super Chat. And this one is for you, David. Does David know about the 1997 dating of Mount Vesuvius igneous rock? It was argon to argon dating and the test result showed an age of 1,925 years. Since it was 1997, that was only off by seven years. Okay, well, we can talk about that. Let's see, where to begin on this. Historically from Roman historians, probably the Jewish historian Josephus, we know when Vesuvius blasted off. And so we have a historical date for the eruption of Vesuvius. So we know that from eyewitness accounts. King Crocoduck has accused me of some sort of global conspiracy, global cooperation among these 200 people that do rate metric dating. That's not what I think. And I hate to return to money. Isn't it strange how so many things revolve around money? And I'll say it this way, whoever got this date being only nine years difference, if they had not done that, they would have lost their job and their children would not go to college. They have to choose a date that matches the evolutionary bias. And so I reject that date because it's some 50 year old guy who wants to still make his Mercedes Benz payment and send his children to a good school like University of Tennessee. That's my explanation. Well, Dave, the good news is I provided you with a tool that would actually allow you to substantiate that claim with evidence instead of just telling stories. So you go ahead, you look up funnel plots, you look up Egger's regression test, you look up robust Bayesian meta-analysis. That's really the gold standard, I think. You go ahead and you use these tools and you expose those dishonest geologists. In January, February, when we have another debate, my friend, I will have looked into those methods and we'll talk more then. So we've got to go. Incidentally, I actually want to just bounce off that question a little bit. Dave, what about your lifestyle? What about the payments that you've received from the Institute of Creation Research? Answers in Genesis, whatever other organizations you've been affiliated with, could, in person, make the exact same accusation against you? Well, let me write some numbers up on the board and be able to show you how that's actually not true. When I joined ICR in 1983, so I joined the Institute for Creation Research in one of the most beautiful parts of America, San Diego, in 1983, we had wanted to buy a house out there. So my wife called a relicter and told the relicter what I made. And the relicter laughed in her face. She said, you can't even afford to live in your car in San Diego for that amount of salary. And so it's kind of sad, and I'm sad to tell you, King, that I did not make the $100,000 a year that I needed to be able to live in California. I recently wrote an article for the Answers in Genesis Magazine that was accepted for publication. And I spent many hours, probably 40 hours on this article for which I was paid less than $400. Now, I could have sent, what would it have been, four jokes to Reader's Digest and made that kind of money. And so I hope that gives you a viewpoint, but I wanna be quick to add this. In 50 years of marriage and 70 years of life, I've probably only missed one or two meals. So from my viewpoint, God has provided for me, even as someone who does not have a PhD, I have a master's, in my weakness, I have found strength. So that's the way I would answer your question. I think the people who you accuse of conspiracy, well, not a top-down conspiracy, but a bottom-up conspiracy could also tell stories. And I think their story isn't your story. Well, I guess we're approaching the end, but the point is, I look into those methods, I talked about and see if you can discover anything. Yeah, I will do that in the next few months. Cool. All right, got two more questions. From Samir Farh saying, for $5, they say, the moon supposedly formed from orbiting remains of a collision of a past of an ancient planet with Earth. Identify any foreign rocks or they all went to the moon? So not all of them, a lot of people don't know this, we actually have multiple moons. It's just that the other ones are relatively small, but they're there. Some of them are left over debris, some of them I think might have been just captured. But yeah, for the most part, whatever remained from the Thea collision, it accreted back to the Earth and onto the thing that eventually became the moon. And Donnie, with the last one. And if David wanted to respond to that, then we'd give KC the last word. David, I saw you writing on the whiteboard. Is there anything you want to add? Yeah, yeah, there's an error that King has made there. If you look at the different explanations for our moon, there is the mother-daughter theory, there is the kind of a coalescence theory, and then there is this impact theory where a quite a large asteroid or something hit the Earth and ejected the moon out. Dr. Don DeYoung is a retired professor from the Midwest and he's written an excellent book on the origin of the moon and he debunks all of these ideas, especially the one that King advocated. Thank you, David. King Crocoduck, you can have the last word if you'd like, question was for you. Well, I mean, what's there to say? Don DeYoung, a guy said a thing. I don't know what the thing is, but apparently the thing just proves whatever I believe. So what's there to add? Okay, let's move on to the next question. This wraps up the super chats and then I think if it's okay with Kaz, I think we'll have time for a few of the regular questions after this. Do we have time for that, King Crocoduck? Do you have time to stay? Sorry, could you repeat the question? Do you have time to stay for more questions because we didn't have time slotted for the Q&A in the format? I could do a few more minutes, sure. Okay. And I too can stay to the two hour 30 minute mark. So I've got 15 more minutes of strength. Okay. Well, thank you for both of your time, guys for making this happen. It's definitely been a great debate. So this is more so a comment, but it's a super chat. So we'll get it in here from Coffee Mom. Coffee Mom says, Darwin found evolution, but we didn't stop there. So if there's anything the debaters would like to say to that, maybe it's more directly. I'll let King go first. I've got... One more time. What was it? My audio is still a little choppy. I'm sorry. No worries. It's a comment that came in the form of a super chat. Coffee Mom says, Darwin found evolution, but we did not stop there. I'm not really sure what's meant by that. Sounds poetic. Maybe because it's more of a comment, we got it in there. We appreciate the support. We'll just move on to... I think it's a very important point that King is missing. The Darwinian viewpoint led, as the years went on, to the idea that came out in the 1920s in the European school system, all over Europe, but I'll use Germany as example. Here we go. In the 1920s, the German high school students were taught that, hey, evolution's true. So that means that as you look at the evolution of the human race, there must be somebody that's more evolved than somebody else. And so the Germans had a bias, of course, to the Aryan race that they loved so much. And so they pretty much said, okay, let's say that we are actually more evolved than the Jews and the Slavs and people that have Down syndrome. And so let's go measure the noses of these people. Oh, we've got scientific evidence now to find out who can be, and the German word was my high school language, is Fair Nickton Slaughter. Who goes into a prison where you're made nothing. My dad fought in World War II, so I have emotion about this. And so the whole issue of the Holocaust revolves around the proper conclusion of Darwin's work. David, the Nazis didn't kill Jews because they thought that they were less evolved than them. The Nazis killed Jews because they thought they were evil. They had a conspiracy theory that held that Jewish finance and Jewish communism were conspiring with each other to secretly take over the world. Regardless of whatever eugenics beliefs they had, they would have still carried out the Holocaust, even if they thought, even if they didn't have this perversion of evolutionary theory, it wasn't even really evolutionary theory. They believed in a lot of crazy BS. You have hyperborean nonsense about these ancient Nordic civilizations living under the ice, or whatever, you have these occultist beliefs, and I can play this game too. I can point to the former Soviet Union and how their rejection of genetics and their rejection of evolutionary theory as it stood at the time led to the Senkoism whose implementation caused the deaths of millions. Oh yeah. I can play this game too, David, is what I'm saying, and my history will be better because I'm not gonna mistake Weimar Germany for Nazi Germany, the Weimar Germany being in the 1920s and Nazi Germany being in the 30s. No, you're clearly making a mistake. Have you read Mein Kampf either in German or English? Have you actually read what Hitler wrote? I've read parts of it. He's not a great writer. No, no, it's like a punishment of hell to try to get through it. But if you go to his actual words, you come with a different, and you know. Does he mention Darwin? Does he mention Darwin even once in Mein Kampf? This is a question I actually know the answer to. Well, I have to pause on that. I think he mentions more the idea of eugenics and Spencer and people like that. Does he even mention Darwin once? No. Guys, I appreciate the back and forth there. Maybe we should move on to the next question. Yeah, sorry. Words. Okay, Kaz, if you wanted to take the next one and then we'll kind of start winding it down from here. Oh, Kaz, I think you're on mute. Okay, now you can hear me, I'm sure. Two more super chats came in from TLO for $5. They say just FYI, the Mount Vesuvius dating test and results are available online for free. Did David read slash look at those before saying it was a big conspiracy? Question mark. Okay, I would like for you to send that either to Kaz or to Donnie, and I will take a look at those results. But I don't, in order for my argument to stand, I don't actually need to see the results because the work of the rate committee at ICR back from 80, I was briefly part of that effort about halos. The work of people like Larry Varderman and others over the years, there's a clear bias. As a matter of fact, ICR went to a lot of trouble to set up, I don't know what to be called, shadow corporations to send their results off to radiometric labs, radiometric dating labs to get the results they reported. So the very idea that there's bias by somebody that looks at Vesuvius and gets the date, I'm not gonna argue that next. Okay, final super chat that has come in for this debate, this much anticipated debate I'll say, is from ThunderStorm, $5 super chat. And okay, so this questioner says, this might be off topic. I was interested in the panel's opinion on Dr. Dennis Stanford's Solutrient Hypothesis. If you gentlemen are familiar with that. Spell the word that begins with the letter T. Solutrient, so it's S-O-L-U-T-R-E-A-N. I think it's a misspelling of the TV show Soul Train from when I was a boy. I don't have any comment. It looks like it is pretty off topic. It looks like it has to do with human migration and it might be better saved for another debate. And Kaz, I'll hand it over to you. I'd like to say goodbye to King by complimenting him on our debate tonight. Can I do that before I leave the studio? Oh, of course. King, I very much appreciate the professionalism in your comments and I look forward. I hope we can agree that perhaps in January we could go to another topic like mammography or something. It's certainly something to consider. And thank you for joining me, David. Even though your name is all lowercase, you'll always be uppercase David to me. Well, that is what my kindergarten wife would call acute comments. I will take that as a compliment. But seriously, one topic that we could go on, you and me, is in January, why don't we look at statistics more carefully, you and me together with the references that you've given me. And then let's pick up on this topic of catastrophic plate tectonics. I enjoy defending my old friend, Dr. Baumgartner. Does that sound like a reasonable idea for the future? We'll see about the plate tectonics. I can't give any promises on that because the radiometric dating thing, it has its basis in fundamental physics, which is sort of my wheelhouse and something I can talk about intelligently. But I can definitely see us talking about statistics in greater detail because that is something. I would like that. Thank you so much, Kaz, for such a good job in being a co-host. I'll ask God's blessing on the four of you. And Donnie, I am out of here. I'm going to hit the X button. Okay, David McQueen, thank you so much. Thank you. Have a good one. Thank you, sir. One more chat did come in at the last second from Samir Farzain. Do you want to take it real quick? Sure, are we still alive? Yes, we are still alive. I'm sorry. There will be no more super chats, ladies and gentlemen. Please do not send anymore. I cannot guarantee that they will be read. One thing from pure Aussie gold did say that loves Professor McQueen always gentlemen. So thank you so much pure Aussie gold for that. And Samir Farzain's question was considering evolution and the number of species. So you could have a new species every 68 years. Name a few from the last 200 years or evolution till a nap. Yeah, sure. What are they called? Are they Encinadas or Encitinas? I think Encitinas that ring species, the one that migrated around in like kind of a horseshoe trajectory. And then the initial one that started the migration and then they were able to breed with the new one. That would be an example of a speciation event. There's a whole list of speciation events. You could just Google it and you'll find a whole list. All right, awesome. Thank you so much for that. Standing for truth. Do you want to say a couple of words before I take us out of here? Yeah, last words will be thank you so much to King Crocoduck and David McQueen who's not here anymore. But thanks so much for an awesome debate. I know we scheduled this and it's been in the works for, you know, a few months. People have been looking forward to it. And I definitely didn't disappoint. It was technical. It was thorough. Kaz, thank you so much for, you know, hosting and moderating this. And as always, it's a privilege to be here on modern day debate. James Coons is doing a fantastic job. I see Mark Reed in the chat this Tuesday. He will be debating Ken Hoven over on my channel. Is there reasonable evidence for evolution? So that should be a pretty epic showdown. To the audience. Thanks for tuning in tonight. Lots of great questions and just a really good debate. So thanks so much. All right. Thank you so much. And King Crocoduck, do you want to say a last couple words? Yeah, subscribe to me. And normally I say something vulgar after that, but I don't want to demonetize you guys. So yeah, have a good one. Ciao. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. And then once again, ladies and gentlemen, just want to remind you again about debate con two coming up on November 19th in Plano, Texas. That's a Saturday. Get your tickets while they're still hot. Link in the description below tomorrow night. Once again, Matt Dillon, we'll be taking on David to be debating whether or not gambling should be illegal. So subscribe, like it. If you love it, share it. If you want to spread it, subscribe. Do all the good stuff. And we have many more debates coming your way. Our speakers are linked in the description below. So if you liked what you heard tonight, check them out. Do it now. Thank you so much, everyone. Thank you to Donnie from standing for truth ministries. We're helping me out tonight. Thank you to the moderators in the chat. Thank you to James for creating this platform. And thank you to everybody who elevated the conversation and the discourse. So once again, and the debaters of course, who are the lifeblood of the show. How could I forget? So everybody have a great night and remember, keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Have a great night.