 Woo-hoo! What is up everyone and welcome to modern day debate. We are a neutral non-partisan platform welcoming everybody from all walks of life. If you're looking for even more fantastic debates, we are all over the internet including your favorite podcasting platforms like Apple, Spotify, Google, and of course YouTube. So if you enjoy debates, please don't forget to like, follow, and subscribe including tonight's debate on Did Noah's Ark Exist and Work? With our debaters Dr. Chris and Kyle Adams here to help us find out and if you enjoy what either of them have to say tonight, our guest links are in the description below. You can also tag me in chat at Amy Newman with your question or comment for our Q&A section. Those super chats will get you set to the top of the list. With that I'm gonna hand it over to the affirmative for their opening statement the floor is all yours and got to unmute but that was my fault because I mute everybody at the beginning. Oh okay now I'm unmuted. Sorry about that. Welcome all to scripture study. Today we're talking about the feasibility of Noah's Ark and I'm really excited to be here. So in order to really determine just how feasible that Ark was, we need to first gather the context of it, the specifications and things like that. And so I think the best way to do that is to go to the source and kind of establish where those goalposts are. So I'm just reading here from Genesis chapter 6 and the King James Bible and I'll just get started from there. It says, and it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born into them that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they chose, or sorry, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took them wives all of which they chose. Okay so first question here is when did men begin to multiply upon the face of the earth? I look at that and I think that's the time of Adam and Eve. Those were the first man and first woman and they began to multiply and so that's where there is kind of when things got started here. So from the time of Adam and Eve until Noah at this time. And it says, in the spirit of the Lord said, my spirit shall not always strive with man for that he is also flesh, yet his days shall be 120 years. So as I understand it, and there's multiple interpretations on this, but one of the interpretations that really gets to me on this is saying, hey, because those guys are being wicked, I'm going to give them 120 years and then after that time's up. And so you guys got to repent. You've got a time limit and this kind of happens from time to time throughout the Bible. I just kind of think about the city of Nineveh with Jonah and the whale there and how he kind of gave them a time limit to repent and if they didn't repent in time, then yeah, that's kind of time for destruction. And so this is kind of one of those things. And then it says there were giants in the earth in those days and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bear children unto them, the same became mighty men, which were of old men of renown. So what days are we talking about? There were giants in the earth in those days. Well, we already just established that whole context of those days being from the time of Adam and Eve until Noah, when men began to multiply upon the face of the earth. So there were giants in those days for a long time and saying here that they were mighty men, which were men of old. They lived for a long time and they were men of renown. We understand Adam lived for a long time and we also understand that Noah, he lived for a really long time. I think the Bible later describes him living as long as 950 years. That's how old he lived, according to the Bible. And he was mighty enough to build an ark. And of all of the scripture stories in the Bible, I think one of the most memorable scripture studies is Noah, Noah and the Flood. So yeah, Noah was definitely a man of great renown. So right here, this appears to me like it's describing Noah here, that Noah very well could have been a giant. And so later on as we read in the scriptures here, it's going on and it tells us kind of the specifications of the ark. They were measured in cubits, right? And the length of a cubit is from the tip of your elbow to the tip of your fingers. And so that is going to be different on every person. And yeah, if so, according to me, a cubit is one length, but if someone has an arm that is like twice the length, you're going to have twice the size of an ark. And so the question really is like, how big would a man have to be in order to fit all the different animals on the ark, right? And so yeah. And so that question right there is another whole ball game because when we start thinking about all the animals that were on the ark, how many animals were there on the earth in those days? And what's gopher wood? Like, what did they make the ark out of? Did they call gopher wood? Was that referring, what's a gopher tree? And apparently there is a gopher tree in Florida somewhere. It's kind of similar to a cypress tree. But was that the same tree today as they were referring to back then? I don't know. And so it's really easy to look at these things with kind of a presentism, a presentism where we're kind of looking at things, taking a modern standard and judging things of old with that same standard. So how many different animals were on the earth in those days? I can just look at how many dogs are on the earth today. Today it said that according to some standards, there are over 360 different breeds of dog. Do you think all 360 different breeds of dog were around 200 years ago? I don't think so. Okay, we have a lot more animals on the earth today than we did 200 years ago. Right? And so the question is, can we really account for all of the different kinds of animals that were on the earth even a thousand years ago? I don't know. And so there's this huge question of, were there far fewer animals in Noah's day than there are today? And so if Noah's a lot larger man than many people would have expected, and if there's far fewer animals in the world back in his day than there are today, then I see this as completely feasible. I don't have any problems with them building an ark and being able to put all the animals on it. So I think that sums up the primary points here that I've got. I'll pass it on to you. Let's hear what you have to say. Thank you for your opening statement from Kyle Adams. And with that, we are going to hand it over to the negative. Dr. Gress, the floor is all yours. Great. Thank you for having me. Actually, Amy, I think you need to enable sharing for me because I do have a presentation. Can you do that, please? Thank you for having me anyway. Let me get started a little bit on my introduction. So my name is Chris Thompson. I'm an assistant professor of neuroscience at Virginia Tech. Now you might be wondering why a professor of neuroscience is doing something like this. Well, let's see. My background as an undergraduate was in evolutionary biology at the University of Illinois. So I have an interest in evolution. And of course, in the United States, that means that it inevitably bumps up against creationism. So I have a strong interest in this. Now most, you know, because I have a bachelor's in evolutionary biology, actually doesn't even make me an expert in evolution. I know a lot about it. I know more about it than like most neuroscientists, for instance. But most experts in evolutionary biology don't see the utility in this at all of debating creationists or people who believe that Noah's Ark is real. They think it's kind of silly. I think it's just kind of fun. So that's why I'm doing this. So do we have sharing up yet? Yes, we do. Excellent. Thank you for doing that. So one second. Hold on. Let me get my presentation up. One second. Sorry about this. That's okay. Everyone out there in chat and on the interwebs. Hello, hello. Don't forget to like, follow, and subscribe. Okay. So are we up and ready to go? Go deal. All right. So what my work is about is I study how hormones shape the development and plasticity of neural circuits. And I study this in a wide range of species. And I can do this because, well, it turns out that the old species have a common ancestor, including different animals with humans. So we can study an awful lot about human health and conditions from animal models. Now the views that I expressed tonight are my own and do not reflect the views of Virginia Tech or the great commonwealth of Virginia. Let's talk about Noah's Ark. All right. So tonight's debate is about whether the story of Noah's Ark is feasible? And did it actually exist? Here's a picture, artist's rendition of Noah's Ark. So let's get into it. The thing about feasibility is, like, okay, is Noah's Ark even possible? Right? I suppose that's one aspect of what we're talking about. Now, I kind of find this to be a silly question. It's a little bit like asking if the Death Star from, you know, Star Wars could actually destroy Alderaan. Like, I suppose you could imagine the ability to build some sort of giant space spaceship that's like the size of a moon that has a big laser and destroys Alderaan. Now, that didn't happen. It's fantasy. And the thing is, of course, Noah's Ark is fantasy, too. But the thing is, like, I don't even think Noah's Ark is even feasible. So let's get into this a little bit. Now, like, as a neuroscientist, do I know anything about nautical engineering? No, obviously not. But I don't think you have to be a nautical engineer to know how absurd the story of Noah's Ark is. All right. So Kyle said that, like, we don't know how long qubits are. I know that there's some debate about qubits. Never heard anyone argue that Noah was a giant, but okay. It seems a little weird since he's actually a father of all humanity. You would think that many of us would be giants, too, since everyone is descended from Noah, right? Anyway, so many scholars settle on qubits being a certain length and that Noah's Ark would have been around 510 feet long. Okay. That's what many scholars believe. That's more than one and two thirds football fields long. I'm talking about American football, you know, I'm talking about. So that that's a big, big, big ship. And it was three layers, right? So there are three decks within. And this was supposed to hold all the animals. Maybe let's get to that. We'll talk about that. All right. So what about real wooden boats? That's fantasy. We're going to get into real wooden boats. So the largest boat ever made was actually made only around 100 years ago, which makes sense, right? Like, you would imagine technology only getting better and better over time. These were the six masted schooners. These were specialized here in the United States. They were built to be massive so that they could carry American coal over to Europe. So it had to be big so that you can carry enough coal over one trip to make it economically feasible. These ships were huge. Okay. The Wyoming was the biggest of them all. But so this was built in 1909. It was a huge unwieldy ship. And it was only 350 feet long, which is two thirds the length of supposedly what the ark was. Let's talk about why the Wyoming was so unwieldy. The Wyoming sucked. It sucked as a ship. And the reason why it sucked so bad is because it was so big. It was so massive that the long planks of the Wyoming would twist and buckle in the heavy seas. So you could imagine the seas bucking and tossing the ship around. And because it was so long, all the planks would be twisting and buckling and creating gaps, which meant that there was seawater that would continuously flow into the hold. They would use pumps. They had pumps built into this ship. They had to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week in order to keep the hold relatively free of water. It required a crew of hundreds to build it. And this is even using, you know, relatively modern technology. It also required steel braces. There were 90 steel braces all along the inside of the hull, trying to prevent those long planks from buckling and bending. Now this didn't exist back in Noah's day. So the reason why it sucked so bad is plainly obvious. And in fact, it only took 15 years in March of 1924 that it sank. And it killed everyone on board. Okay. So that's the Wyoming. So let's talk about the Ark. So we're supposed to believe that the Ark was 50% larger than the largest wooden ship ever built. That it was built by four dudes, even if they were giants, right? Okay. Whatever that means. It was built around 4,400 years ago, which meant that it was limited to the technology used at that time, right? By these four dudes. And that it was manned by eight people, right? Noah and his sons and their wives at sea for over a year. Let's just ignore the animal part, right? Just imagine eight people trying to man this ship for over a year at sea. Okay. Let's get to the animals, right? Because that's the whole point. The Ark had to be big enough to have room for all the quote unquote kinds, right? Well, hopefully we'll get into what that means. It also had to include all their food. That's in the Bible too. That Noah had to go out and collect all the food for the different animals. It also had to have enough fresh water for all the animals for them to sit in the Ark for over a year. They had to keep predators away from prey, right? You had to also manage their waste. These animals would end up making huge amounts of waste, right? The Ark obviously is like going to be filled with waste. You could just imagine what the Ark would smell like after a single day and imagine after a year what all that would smell like. So how do we know that the Ark didn't exist? There are lots of different reasons. So that all that was just about the feasibility. Like it just doesn't make sense. How do we know it didn't exist? The thing is, there's too many ways to count. And that's what I plan to get into. We're going to talk about that today in the open discussion. But there's one way we do know. So the thing, like we can, if one of the claims of the Ark is that it had to carry all the animals and that the animals today are descended from animals that were on the Ark, we should be able to use molecular clocks in order to figure out does that correspond with them descended from a common ancestor that was on the Ark 4,400 years ago? And the thing is molecular clocks actually correspond really well with other lines of evidence. So this is a diagram showing millions of years ago with certain kinds of splits that we know that have occurred within the fossil record. So I know that this is generally considered to be the split between the placental mammals and the marsupial mammals. The nucleotide sequence substitutions, we can also compare extant animals today, that meaning that they're alive today, and compare pairs of animals for when we think that their last common ancestor is based on the fossil evidence. And we see an overwhelmingly tight correlation for this data across a long span of lifespan. So we have very consistent fossil evidence that not all animals were descended from a single common ancestor or common ancestors from 4,400 years ago. And in fact, it's highly consistent with the fossil record. So that's the thing. There are many lines of evidence that support phylogenetic sequencing. This is an example of what the phylogenetic sequencing looks like when you compare humans to chimpanzees or humans to mice. So then we got the mammals all here. And then of course humans to say chickens or say reptiles. And then you can compare them to my favorite species, the frog. And then down to fish, right? So we got the vertebrates, and we can even include invertebrates in this. And the molecular data shows that there must have been a single common ancestor. But when we want to talk about molecular data as far as the Ark is concerned and within kinds, I'm going to show you that there's no way that this can work. So the thing is genetic sequences result in the pattern that precludes the divergence of animals from Noah's Ark. It just doesn't make sense. And Kyle, he's going to have to explain that, okay? And hopefully he'll be able to do that. We'll see. So the other thing about humanity is that genetic evidence doesn't support that all human beings are descended from people that were on the Ark. And you're right. So we can always focus that there was Adam and Eve, right? And that Adam and Eve are the father of all of humanity. At least that's what Kyle seemed to indicate. There's a long lineage that it gets to Noah. But remember, everyone was killed in the Great Flood, right? Except for Noah and his three sons and their wives. So everyone is actually descended from these guys down here. This is the real genetic bottleneck, not just for humanity, but for all animals, right? Genesis 714. They, Noah and his his little homeboys, his kids, they had to have with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground, right? Every creature according to its kind and every bird according to its kind. And actually another verse that actually says that birds had to be brought in seven pairs, not just pairs of animals. There's a lot of reasons why the Ark doesn't make sense. But creationists claim that they had two male and female of each kind of animal on the Ark 4,400 years ago. They claim that biodiversity that we see today must have emerged from those original kinds. This means that not only did they believe in evolution, but they obviously believe in like hyper evolution. The problem is there has not been enough time for this level of speciation. And I know, Kyle, you said that we didn't have 200 breeds of dogs. Sorry, 360 breeds of dogs 200 years ago. That actually isn't true. I mean, I imagine that maybe there's been a few emergencies of a couple of different breeds, but we had nearly ever agreed around 200 years ago that we'll get into that. I'm happy to talk about it and hopefully correct some of these misconceptions that you have. I'm happy to end it there. Thank you, both Dr. Chris and Kyle Adams. We are now going to break into our open discussion, but please keep on sending in those chat questions or super chats to get you sent to the top of the list. And don't forget to like, file and subscribe. But with that, gentlemen, the floor is both of yours. Okay, so you're saying that the Ark wasn't big enough. So how big do you claim the Ark needed to be? That's a great question. And actually, you know, we're talking about something fantasy from fantasy world. So I kind of want to get what your impression is, because I actually don't think that it existed. You said that there were only so many animals on the Ark, right? Now, okay, first of all, are you a biblical literalist? Do you believe that the Bible was like, literally true? There are parables in the Bible. There are some parables and there's any parables within Genesis 6 and Genesis 7? No, not really. Yeah, this is kind of like one of those really key pivotal points. And it's very doctrinal talking about the baptism of the earth. And yeah, even Christ referred to this moment as, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Right. All right. So you believe that like, like the way it's written in the Bible, it had to happen that way. You're not going to weasel out like the way other creationists do on certain verses. Is that right? Weasel out on certain verses. Yeah. So, okay. What was on the Ark? Why don't you tell me what kind of animals were on the Ark? We had people and we had animals. I don't know what kind of animals were on the earth. Were there any plants that were on the Ark? They had food for them. And so there were some plants that they kept to see. So when the flood occurred, did any plants survive on the earth? It says here that he went out and collected seeds. Right. I can try and find that verse if you want me to. That he went out and collected seeds for different plants to take with him. What about insects? Do you think insects were on the Ark? Did he have to collect insects? I consider them to be an animal. So I'm not. Okay. Do you know how many different kinds of insects there are? I don't, nor do I know how many were on the earth in those days. What is a kind? Can we get to that? Exactly. What is a kind? And that's one of those kind of things with presentism that I kind of addressed before is we have a huge phylogenic system today, but we don't, you know, to assume that they grouped everything by the exact same phylogenic system that we use today. That's presentism. All right. And so it doesn't still, what's a kind? All right. So when the Bible says that Noah brought kinds onto the Ark, what does that mean? So and talk about like, like animals. So are there species today that were on the Ark, or at least like, you know, that were present back then 4,400 years ago? First of all, do you believe that that's the case? Do you think that there are the like most creationists believe it was around 4,400 years ago? And you have to do that because of the timing, right? There's clearly descendants of Noah that eventually led to like the Israelites. And they say like, this guy begat that guy and that guy begat that guy. So they've gone through all of this. So I assume you believe all that's true, right? Yeah. The genealogy in there is, I think the genealogy in there is as correct as it can be. And right. So the flood, the great flood had to happen 4,400 years ago. Approximately, right? I'm not convinced because if we just look at calendars, did they use the same calendar that we do today? You know, that's another instance of presentism. Our calendar is different, like from the Hebrew calendar for starters. And exactly as the reason why like when they said Noah was like 900 years old, but maybe he actually wasn't because they had different calendars. That is a possibility. But they still called him, you know, someone who was of old. And so they did emphasize a lot on how he lived for a long time. And so I think that's going to be true no matter what calendar. So I don't know if you know what you're agreeing to, because like what you're saying is vastly different than most creationists actually say. I don't think that you're well read up on this topic. You probably would have benefited from actually reading like what other creationists have to say, because you kind of walked yourself into like some really severe impossibilities for this to be an actual true story. Now, creationists know this because they say like, no, of course there weren't insects on the ark because it would be ludicrous to imagine that the vast, vast, vast diversity that we see just amongst the arthropods, that that would have to be on the ark, right? That is assuming you're kind of looking at it with presentism eyes. Presentism, okay. Yeah. Presentism, yes. That is judging it by today's standards, something a long time ago that didn't, that were today's standards didn't apply. All right. Listen, let me just ask you this. Do you know how many different species of beetles there are? Today? No, I don't. Yes, today. Yeah. Just the beetles. And I'm talking about George and Ringo and, right, I'm talking about like the bugs. Yeah, beetles, take a guess. I don't know why it's really important. The really important thing is, 100? Is it more than 100? Okay. Again, it depends on how big you think the ark needed to be. That's the main thing. And you can't even tell me like how big the ark would need to be in order to be a physical thing. So you could say there are, you know, a billion beetles on the earth today. And so that would still- More than a billion, but like for different species, it's around 300,000 described species. 300,000 different described species. And obviously they would have to have to have descended from what, like a single pair that was on the ark 4,400 years ago. Is that what you're trying to claim? I don't know how it all works, really. So I don't know how it all works here. Okay. Exactly. So, and that's just the beetles, right? So we've got true bugs. You've got mosquitoes. You've got mantids. You know, all of these different groups of insects, just the insects is clearly thousands and thousands of different described species. And that's the described. We know that there's a lot that is undescribed because there's vast areas of the tropics that have not actually been thoroughly looked at. And so we know that there's probably twice as many additional species of the beetles, at least, in these areas. And so we're talking about literally millions of different species. So there has to be an explanation for like, how did we get those just from the flood, right? Like, did Noah have them on the ark, right? And like, okay, so you said that they were on the ark because they, you know, they were the things creepy crawly on the ground and they had to come on the ark. Isn't that right? Yeah, that's my understanding of it. Didn't say that, oh, we're gonna leave all the bugs. It doesn't, it never excludes them. Right. Like, because it would make no sense that there'd be bugs today. And, and, and like they were all killed in the flood because they were not on the ark, right? But they were only pairs, right? Because they can only come in pairs. I assume bugs are unclean animals. Are they clean? What do you think? John the Baptist ate locus, right? So if he's eating locus, that's okay. So they would have seven pairs of the locus. Now, okay, I don't know how much you know about entomology. But there's quite a few different kinds of insects that are parasitic. And that's the only way that they can survive. So are you familiar with parasitic wasps? Yeah. Okay, so you know how they reproduce, right? Do you know that there are parasitic wasps in those days? Or that there were any like parasitic insects in those days? You tell me man, that's your story. It's, you're the one who's, I think that there were parasitic wasps 4,400 years ago. Yes. Okay. That's a nice theory. But do you have any, like, evidence? Sure, we can look at molecular evidence. Let's get to the molecular evidence. Do you have any fossils of them is what I'm trying to say. Oh, so I mean, we don't necessarily need fossil evidence to know that like, say, parasitic wasps must have existed 4,400 years ago. There's something known as molecular clocks that allow us to determine these things. Do you have any idea how a molecular clock works? No. Okay. So, if there was a common ancestor, right? Maybe Amy would be all right if I share again. It's easier for me to just show it. Absolutely. Right. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. All righty. Boom. Let's get to this and sorry to get into professor lecture mode. But you know, I am a professor and it's almost impossible for me to have a conversation without PowerPoint in front of me. So molecular clocks allow us to estimate when there was a last common ancestor. Okay. So genetic sequence, right? The genome is made up of Cs, A's, T's, and Gs. So you can imagine maybe there was some sort of ancestral gene like this and the two populations may have diverged, you know, amongst evolutionary biologists, that population may have just split around 50 million years ago. When those populations splits, now they're completely isolated, you're going to get random insertions. Okay. So mutations will occur and if they are retained and passed on to the next generation, those are now insertion events. Okay. Or there's a change. Okay. A change that's incurred. They're not necessarily insertions. They can be substitutions as well or deletions. What we're looking at here are changes. Okay. So random mutations. So this T is now a G in this lineage. And this G is now a T over here. And then over time, there's going to be a certain rate at which this occurs, right? So another stretch of time. Now we've got like another, say, 20 million years that has passed. And now we have more mutations that have accumulated. And so eventually what we do is that we can compare the sequence from the lineage, you know, currently, we can look at this lineage and compare it to this lineage to see, are they similar to each other? And that's how we can tell a molecular clock. Now the thing is, all right, if I can get, since I'm here, I'm just going to kind of go fast forward a little bit. I know we're going through a lot of stuff. Okay, back up. All right. So let's get to about kinds. Okay. So Kyle, how many different kinds of bears do you think were on the arc? I think that's irrelevant. The question that is important here is how big do you think the arc needed to be in order to fit? Right. And the only way that we can determine that is actually if there were enough, it wasn't big enough to accommodate the different kinds, right? So we have to determine how many kinds were on the arc. So for instance, I don't think that there was a kind of bear that was created, and that there was only a pair of them on the arc, right? I obviously believe that bears and other animals shared a common ancestor. What do you think? Do you think that bears were specially created? Or do you think that they shared a common ancestor with some other kind, say like the other carnivores? Because bears are carnivores. Well, I kind of view bears kind of similar to dogs. I think a lot of dogs end up going back. And their molecular DNA is actually quite similar, too. You compare the molecular sequences of say polar bears or brown bears, and you compare them to say dogs or wolves or lions. They're going to be more similar than any of them are to say human beings. Would you agree with that? I mean, obviously, like that's the data. Okay. So we can just first off kind of, if you want to say go with the present kind of terms, you can kind of establish how big you think an arc would have needed to be in order to be feasible by today's standards. And so that's a good starting basis. And then after you decide, okay, well, this is how big it would have to be by today's standards. And then we can kind of make a judgment call on, okay, well, that is with all the animals on the world today. So now let's kind of try to reconsider how many animals we really think were on the earth in those days, if there were more or less. And then we can kind of adjust those standards to, yeah, and we can kind of shrink that down to where it would be feasible in those days. I think that's a good way to address things. So by today's standards, how big do you think the arc would have needed to be in order to be feasible? Okay. Honestly, I have no idea because it doesn't make any sense to me because I know that evolution works far too slowly to accommodate the rapid diversification that creationists require in order for them to have e-descendant kinds. I don't think that it actually makes a whole lot of sense to start from like, oh, could the arc be big enough to have all the different species? I mean, we'd have to be massive to include today's species, that's for sure. And also- I'm not saying it's not going to be massive, everyone's saying- It'd have to be a lot bigger than what's described in the Bible, that's for sure. There's a reason why creationists talk about that like, there were only so many kinds on the arc. There were only babies, right? They talk about how they were hibernating during that time. These are all the arguments I was kind of expecting you to come up with, because these are the basic ones. But we're going way, way, way back. And there's no way that you could possibly have pairs of polar bears, pairs of brown bears, pairs of American black bears, pairs of Asian black bears, pairs of soft bears. You're just saying that there's no way because you don't- On the arc, yes, along with all the other species. But okay, let's get to the feasibility a little bit, just with the bears. Okay, have you ever talked to a zookeeper that keeps and maintains bears? Have I ever talked to one? No. Yeah, or seen a documentary on bears and zoos or something like that. What do you think it would take to keep and maintain a pair of bears anywhere, like in a zoo? I don't know, yeah. Think about it. Like, do you think they're just friendly that you can just be like, okay, little bears, let's just kind of go along into your little cage? I think bears are an interesting one because you're the one who brought up hibernating and bears are a specific species. Okay, well, I got the hibernating part, but not all of them actually hibernate. So pandas don't hibernate. Spectacle bears don't hibernate. Okay, nonetheless, you're kind of avoiding how big the ark would have needed to be in order to be feasible. No, I am trying to get to it because we need to know how many animals were on the ark in order for it to even fit, right? Okay, so we're just let's just look at all these different species that you've got here. So I am trying to get on a point of like the feasibility of managing these kinds of animals on the ark. And not just these, we're talking about crazy predators like cobras and scorpions. And I mean, like, because you also have to include parasites, right? Like there had to be pairs of say the guinea worm. Do you know what the guinea worm is? No. Okay, the guinea worm is a parasitic worm that infects human beings by passing through the our gut when we drink dirty water that has little fleas in it. So the little fleas are carrying the tiny little guinea worm. Okay, we swallow them, the fleas get digested in our gut, but then the guinea worm comes out. So this is some of the beauty of creation. Okay, so the guinea worm comes out of the gut, and then it starts crawling through our circulatory system, gets down to our lower extremities, and then gets to the skin and creates this boil that becomes really, really painful to the human beings that have this. Okay, so then it just gets bigger and bigger crawling inside the skin. The human beings then are in so much pain that they're like, oh, I got to get some water. I got to go and like, they go into like a pond, and then they start washing themselves to help leave like the pain. And then the guinea worm has like these little hydroceptors that sense, oh, the human being is now in water. What I'm going to do is now release my little babies out into the water. So there is these tiny, tiny, tiny little little nubbins that then get eat up, eaten up by the fleas that live in the water. And then the cycle continues. I assume that there must have been guinea worms on the ark, right? I mean, if Noah was commanded by God to carry all the guinea worms on the ark, tell me how he kept those guinea worms on the ark. Was he carrying them? Okay, if you can let me talk. So here you're kind of under this huge impression that uh, no other animals were created since that time. But when I think about Moses, okay, and the plagues of Egypt, uh, it talked about the dust of the earth kind of becoming like fleas and flies, right? So that kind of tells me that something was created after the flood. Okay. So what you're telling me, the parasites are created after the flood. Who created the parasites then? Who created them? Well, I'm just looking at the, like the whole plague in Egypt, right? And the flies were created or the mice, I don't know, I have to go back and use the exact reference so I can tell you exactly what, what bug it was. But it was described in this as being created from the dust. And so that was the power of God who created that as a plague to Pharaoh. Okay. So God created the guinea worm, right? I don't know. Why not? Sure. So how did Noah keep the guinea worms and the other parasites, just human parasites on the ark? Okay. And they only had to come in pairs, right? You can only come in pairs. You're ignoring the point of what I just said. Yeah, kind of, because I don't see any point in it and its relevance to this. You're trying to say that God created the, the, the plague and that that happened after the flood. I don't necessarily think that that also means, that means all parasites were then also created after the flood. And the other thing is, so Kyle, we're just talking about human parasites. Every single animal species has parasites that generally or will oftentimes specialize on them and their close relatives. We have to include them too. I'm just telling you that there are certain animals that were described as being created after the flood. It doesn't say all animals were created before the flood. Right. But the parasites would have to be on the ark as well. Some of them. Some of them, yeah, maybe, unless those parasites were created after the flood. So you've got this huge. So you're saying there's like a lot of creation that happens after the flood. So there are no parasites. God's works never cease is kind of a huge statement here. God's works are without end and his words never cease. He's just being poofed out of out of nothingness. I don't claim that. I don't claim that. I mean, that is what you're claiming. Claiming that like there's there's some magic that occurred and that the parasites were just, they just kind of came about and that God created all the parasites after the flood. I'm saying that he created some animals after the flood. And so yeah, I don't have any issue. Is that described in the Bible? Making this up. You're like, it's like, you know how like, okay, the Star Wars nerds, they get all into like, oh, you know, like the different kinds of aliens do this and that. And then they create like this sort of background story and like in order to explain some kind of random stupid thing that's in the movie, that kind of sounds like what you're doing to me. Like you're trying to sort of pigeonhole all this by just making it stuff up. I didn't make anything up here. I gave you a reference in the Bible. Okay. And you kind of are upset with me. So you are not familiar with this reference. Okay. So let's see. Do you believe that the bears share a common ancestor? Do I believe that the bears share a common ancestor? Yes, these different species of bears. There's eight different living species of bears. I'm not entirely sure. I think there's some good evidence for that whole suggestion. Sure. What do you think might be some of that evidence? I think there's a lot of similarities between the different species and of bears. And so I just look at a grizzly bear and a black bear. And I think, wow, you know, I think those two might have been able to interbreed at one point if they can't interbreed today. Well, okay, let's talk about it. All right. So there's been some work on this. We can look at the genetic sequences of these animals. And if you look at the genetic sequence of certain introns, so that's like genetic sequences that actually code for protein, amongst the different species of bears, you can create a phylogenetic tree. And this is because we know that there's a certain rate of mutation that occurs in these animals. We can monitor this over time. We know that this is stable, right? So that's part of the clock. Now, if you look at these six different species of bears, they have a relatively recent common ancestor, that's for sure, because we can compare the genetic sequences and just realize like it would take this much time for the common ancestor between polar bears and brown bears to have diverged. And then American black bears are sort of the out group from that. And this is the North American bear. So it makes sense, right? And then we have these Asian bears. These are Asian bears. They got the sun bear, the sloth bear and the Asian black bear. And it makes sense that they would kind of be sort of related to each other. But now we got the spectacle bear, which is in South America. And then we got the giant panda. If you include them, so, okay, this is what we know. So the last common ancestor between polar bears and brown bears, based on their mutation rates today, well, it's been around 620,000 years ago, 940,000 years ago, and then 107, 1.7 million years ago for the last common ancestor between the North American bears and the South and then the Asian bears. So let's just fill this in. Then we have the spectacle bear. When we look at their genetic sequence, they are the out group of this major clade. So the spectacle bear, based on their genetic sequence, that last common ancestor between them and the rest of these guys must have lived around 5.8 million years ago. And then we have the giant panda, let me include that, that was around 12.5 million years ago. Okay. And so here's the overall sequence. And here's the citation for this. Now, the thing is, if we wanted to say that, like, they all descended from a single common ancestor in Noah's flood, you still have to account for the molecular data. You still have to do this. And we can do this for any group of animals. So if you're going to pretend that, like, the animals might have rapidly diverged in such a quick, you know, sequence, and we can look at the molecular data to see if this is genuinely true, because there's going to be a tree that comes about. So if we just pretend for the moment that the last common ancestor between giant pandas and the rest of the bears was 4,400 years ago, well, that must mean that the last common ancestor between the spectacle bear and the other bears was 2,000 years ago. So we're already talking around the time of Jesus, right? And then for these other bears, they would have to have emerged in more or less the modern era. And in fact, the last common ancestor between polar bears and brown bears would have to have been 1796, after the founding of the United States. It would mean that there were no polar bears back then based on the molecular data. But we know this isn't true. Like, we know that polar bears have been around a very long time. Here's drawings of Dutch sailors killing polar bears from the 1600s and the 1700s. And these are over 1,000-year-old carvings of polar bear statuettes are from IV in Canada. So I almost stopped sharing there, just because I know I've been occupying the screen there a bit. But I kind of wanted to get through that, right? You see what I'm saying? Like, the molecular data does not make sense and precludes any idea that there must have been like a single common ancestor for bears on the ark. And that we're only talking about a group that has eight species in it. Now, if you want to talk about other- I'm not ruling the possibility that all these different species of bear were on the ark. Okay. You are saying that there might have been like eight different groups of species of bears. I'm open for exploring this. I'm open for exploring multiple species on the ark. I'm even open for exploring this in modern-day standards. And so, yeah, that's why I said it's about the feasibility. How big do you claim the ark would have needed to be according to modern-day standards? Yeah. I mean, every time I ask you that question, you ignore that. No, because I think it's massive. First of all, I think the idea of could we fit all these species on the ark? I think I already showed my intro that no, you couldn't, because the largest wooden boat that we ever built only lasted 15 years, and it was a pain in the ass and required these steel structures to keep it from actually sinking at sea. And it was only two-thirds the size of the ark. Now, one thing about the Bible, okay, you say you believe in the Bible, so let's talk about that. One thing about the Bible is that there is a quote. What do they use to build? We're getting back to feasibility. I know that you don't want to talk about the possibility of it, but we can talk about the feasibility. So what did they use to seal the ark? Do you remember that? I see you're talking. That's okay. We can wait. I'm sorry, what? No, it's okay. So do you know what they used to seal the ark? Right, because a wooden boat has to be sealed, right? It doesn't actually say it just says a covering. It says in the King James Version, but not in the original Hebrew. What does Genesis 614 say? It just says a covering. It doesn't say a covering. In Genesis chapter 6 verse 14, it says it was covered in pitch. However, that's not in the original Hebrew. That was added by the Council of King James. They decided to say, oh, well, it was pitch. But it doesn't say that in the original. So what kind of cover do you think they used if not pitch? It just says a cover. Because it's fair, because ancient boats did use pitch. We know that. We can look at archaeological evidence and that pitch was commonly used by ancient shipbuilders. That was an assumption that the Council of King James said, but it just says a covering. It doesn't say. I'm not going to say something that I didn't say. Do you think that they used pitch? I don't know if they used pitch or not. What do you think? All the archaeological evidence indicates that ancient shipbuilders used pitch. We can look at archaeological evidence from Egypt, for instance. Those are some of the oldest wooden boats that we know of, like real boats, like we're talking about. They used pitch for a lot of those. So pitch, do you know what pitch is? Pitch tar is kind of my understanding of pitch. It's kind of tar, like an oil-based kind of substance. Exactly, petroleum-based. Now, do you believe that there was pitch prior to the flood? That there was pitch prior to the flood. I don't see any indicators saying that there was no pitch prior to the flood. Do you believe that there was oil and gas and coal prior to the flood? Yeah. Why do you believe that? Why do I think there was oil and gas? Like, where do you think the oil and gas and coal comes from? Well, oil, you can get oil from grape seeds, like you've ever heard of grape seed oil or olive oil. Yeah, but that's not the kind of oil I'm talking about. It's oil. It is oil. And so oil is in, like, it's just kind of... Yes, there's plant-derived oils. Yes. We're talking about petroleum-based oils. Yeah. And so there's also, yeah, but none of... I see no indicator saying that none of that would be around before the flood. Where does it come from then? The earth. Okay. Yes. How did it get into the earth? That's a really good question. Yeah, some people say... Do you know what creationists believe? I am a creationist. Okay. All right. Well, I'm doubting that now, but what do other creationists believe? Do you have any idea what they say on this? Doesn't really matter, because there's a lot of... It doesn't matter, because we're talking about the Bible and, like, this part of the Bible, like, whether this is really true. Well, you're talking to me. You're not talking to anyone else. Sure. Sure. Sure. Okay. There are a lot of religions out there who view this in different ways. And so, yeah, I am definitely not getting ovened. I am not Rob Skiba. I am not... Yeah. I appreciate that. And I don't even know if you'd be able to see that. Okay. So there's a lot of different people out there who have different views of things. Sure. And yeah. Okay. I don't know how many views you actually have, because you're not actually answering many questions, but let's get to this a little bit. All right. So petroleum is... Let's talk about coal. Let's just start there, right? Okay. So we're not talking about oils from seed or whatever. There's no confusion about what coal is, right? Do you know what coal is? Yeah. What is coal? It's, like, a hard... It's a hard substance that you burn in order to... Right. Where does it come from, though? The ground. Oh, my God. No. Where did it... How did it get into the ground? That's a really good topic right there. It is. Yes. What do you... What do geologists at least believe? Geologists today kind of say different things. And so some people, like... They don't. They really don't. Yeah, they do. No. And so there are some... Okay. Well, you want me to... Please. Yes. God, if you list the various things that geologists say about how coal is... I'm just kind of thinking back the days of Rockefeller and how he's all claiming it's all fossil fuel. But yeah, as we kind of study into that today, is it really fossil fuel? Is it really that limited? Is it all coming from fossils? I'm not convinced. You're not convinced that coal is derived from ancient plant material from around 300 million years plus ago. We can make coal today as far as we can. Yeah, sure. You can get burnt plant material and make coal. But that's not like the hardened rock from pressure that is coal that you can dig out of the ground. It's not the same. It's not the same. Yeah. And the thing is when you go to these coal beds, okay, look, I encourage you. Maybe you're in Utah, I think, right? Are you in Utah? Yeah, I'm in Utah. Okay. And I don't know if there's available coal deposits that you can look at there. But I'm in Appalachia. It's known for its coal deposits. I spent last week at a coal deposit here just south of Blacksburg where I'm at digging and looking for fossils. And I could find all kinds of really interesting plant fossils, examples of plants that do not exist today. And it's in the coal layers because that's all plant material that was tightly compressed. And then all that carbon that made up that plant material is highly then pressurized to create essentially a rock that has a lot of energy in it that can burn and use because it's mostly just carbon. Very different from like other rock. And that's how we know, geologists will say, that this is derived from fossils. So, and I've seen it with my hands. I touched it with my hands and seen it with my eyes. So, and I encourage you to go out and take a look too. Like, you know, to say that like, you can just make coal, you would not be able to make something like this. Okay. Now, creationists generally believe that all that must have emerged during the Great Flood. Right? I'm not convinced. Did you think God just made it with the coal in the ground? Well, I don't believe God poofed the earth into existence. Okay. And so I don't, yeah. And so a lot of creationists out there, as you claim, believe that God just poofed everything into existence, but that's not, and that's not, I, for me, that conveys this concept of a God who literally sat around for an infinite amount of time before Genesis one, one. Okay. Sat around for an infinite amount of time doing absolutely nothing. Okay. A God who sits around for an infinite amount of time forever, kind of in the past before Genesis one, one. That's like equivalent to a dead God. That's, you know, death is not doing anything. I mean, it's been pretty boring. Yeah. And so I don't believe God, it's the kind of being that would do that. You know, his works are without end, without beginning of days or end of years. And so, yeah, that tells me right there that the earth, it doesn't say that the earth was created out of nothing. That's totally preposterous. And so, yeah, he could have taken things that, like, a sandbox and said, okay, well, let's kind of make something out of this material that's here. Right. Okay. So, like, when it talks about Genesis one, the different days, what do you think that that is? Like, is that allegory? Is that the part where you talk about, or is this a calendar issue that you were talking about? Well, like, because you said the calendars must have been very different, like, presentism, right, that we have what the day looks like today, but maybe back then the day was who knows how long. Right. People, it's really easy to kind of look at things and say, okay, well, we see the length of time, okay, for the sun to be in the sky, right, from morning to evening. And that is one time. But even by today's standards, that length of time, a day, is a different time frame depending on where you are in the world. Okay. And so if you are out in Alaska, there are times when you have very little sunlight, okay, compared to being on the equator. Right. If you're on the equator, you see a lot more day. And so when you actually look at the Hebrew and you look at how they define day, that is the kind of the time frame of, it's not, they don't consider a day to be 24 hours. Okay. It's the time that you see the sun in the sky. Okay. And so there's, that is day. Okay, the time that you see the sun in the sky. And so how long is a day, yeah, a day on the equator is going to be a longer time period than a day is going to be at, say, the North Pole? Sure. But like that also means that it's, it still has to be less than 24 hours, right, at most. Less than 24 hours. It has to be at most 24 hours. Like, for instance, if you're above the Arctic Circle and it is summer, then days will be longer, and especially if you're towards the summer solstice, days will be longer, or they're going to be non-ending, right? Exactly, yeah. You get it, you get it. So can you imagine trying to, can you imagine? You can still watch the sun go all the way around and it'll still take 24 hours for it to go all the way around. That's not how they, that's not how they define the word day in Hebrew. You could still do it though, man. Like, that's the thing. Like if you look out and you look at where the sun is, and then you sit there, and even though you're in the Arctic Circle, like, you could still sit there and just go around like this, and 24 hours later, it'll be right there. But that's not how they define the word day, okay? And so that, that could happen five times or something like that, right? But that would still just be one day, because you're, that's a good presentism. You have to look at the way they define things, compared to the way we define things, because language itself changes over time. Kyle, let's go back to the feasibility part a little bit about the Ark, and try to get back onto the topic. The Ark, all right. You were talking about that Noah was a giant, I believe, and that therefore qubits must have been bigger, because his arm was bigger, right? At least you were suggesting that that's a possibility. So I forgot to mention this before, okay? But the sons of God, okay? Rob Skiba likes to point at them and say, oh, well, these are fallen angels and giants are the result of fallen angels interbreeding with man. And I don't, I don't, as much as I love Rob Skiba, he says a lot of things that are right. I disagree with him on this, because we get the reference in Romans 814, says, for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God, okay? As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. And so this right here, if we apply Romans 814 to our scripture in Genesis 6, yeah. So, yeah, we'd have, look at Noah. That would mean that they're referring to the sons of God would have have to have been descended of the, they have, I don't know, influence, but okay, all right. Does anyone who is led by the Spirit of God came into those that were not led with the Spirit of God, they became mighty men and they lived long lives. And we're famous, which definitely describes Noah and his family. Okay, so, right, I'm trying to get tightened to the size of the Ark. How do you think Noah and his family, like, because I'm basing like my estimation of what the, how big the Ark was based on like biblical scholars and what their understanding of what a qubit is. And it's around 500 feet. I've seen some estimates that might be a little bit less, maybe more like 450, but most scholars seem to indicate that Noah is more like 510 feet, right? So that's a pretty big boat, would you agree? That's not most, yeah, those people who are making that claim are assuming, oh yeah, definitely, way bigger. How could you possibly have a wooden boat that big when we know that the biggest boat ever built by human beings was like almost unwieldy to use? Okay, so that was made out of a certain kind of wood. It doesn't say that they made that boat out of gopher wood. And so whatever gopher wood was in those days, okay, it's kind of wrong to assume that because this boat made out of this kind of wood is going to behave the same as this boat that is made out of a completely different kind of wood. Oak is going to be different than pine, right? Yes, I understand that, but like all woods have certain level of flex and torsion that can occur before they actually break. That's part of the reason why they can be used so well for creating nautically shaped boats that can pass through the sea quite well, right? Because you can flex and bend them to make them and shape them so that they can actually fit into the shape that you want to give it some sort of like, not aerodynamic, but like sea dynamic, I don't know what that term is. I'm not a nautical engineer, I have no idea. So, but like, okay, even if it's gopher wood, it would still have to have that flexible capability, wouldn't it? That's your kind of flexible shirt, yeah. But then how was it, so did they have pumps to make sure that it was constantly being emptied? Because that was the thing that you have to do with the six maskooners. And those boats are a fraction of what you're talking about. It doesn't make any sense. Why am I getting it like this? Okay, did they use nails for making this arc? That's another question. Did they use nails? Because whether or not you're using nails. I don't know if you use nails. Well, I think that definitely. They use nails on the, on the schooners. Yeah. And so there are different ways of. Constant leaking. There are ways to construct things that are going to be more integrally sound than other things. What is that? What is that going to look like for such a massive ship that would be three times the size of like, because I think that's what you're talking about. If Noah's a giant, must have built an arc that was like three times the size of the Wyoming, this six maskooner, right? For sure. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't have any problems with that. Well, according to biblical scholars, it would only be about 50% larger, but just suggesting it could be as much as like, three times the size. So now we're talking about a ship that is like bigger than almost any boat that like has ever been created. And we know that those giant boats were so unwieldy. Like there's a reason why they, they only built, there's the hands. You're just looking at one boat, really. No, we're talking about like many, many boats. There were actually several. You've only mentioned one boat that was really unwieldy, that needed to be constantly. Yes. I mentioned the Wyoming, but all of them suffered from this. I actually looked, you know, in preparation for this debate, I get, I get way into this stuff. Like I start looking and like trying to find details about the company that built the boat. So they had built a bunch of five maskooners and six maskooners. And there's a long list of like the result of what happened with all these scooters. So I wrote them just kind of burnt up, but most of them actually sank. Okay. So because they suck, there's a reason why they were like two companies that were building them. And guys, this is going to be our last 10 minutes before open discussion. So if you have something juicy that you want to get out on the debate field, now's the time to do so. And keep on sending in those super chats or questions for either a debater. But right back to you guys. All right. So we've got, you're kind of looking at the boat as being a really small thing. And I'm saying it could have been, you know, way bigger than that. And even by today's standards, it's like, you know, we don't know what it was covered. It just says covering in Hebrew. Right. And so they could have covered it in metal. Okay. No. And think about how big these tankers are today. Okay. Yes. They say boats way bigger today. And so. That's a modern technology. Like that didn't exist back then. And you're just assuming that, you know, the ancients were stupid cavemen. No, I'm not assuming they were stupid cavemen. I mean, they built some pretty amazing boats. But they were wooden boats. But you're still under this huge impression that they were all just stupid cavemen. Okay. But they have God as their instructor here. Okay. And God can teach them how to make a better boat than today's standards. Okay. I'm thinking they could make something. Like we've got our big boats today that are huge, you know, oil rigs and tankers. And, you know, the superships today. Sure. Okay. You got the huge cruise liners. Right. Those are very massive. Maybe that's what actually it was. It was like a big cruise liner. And maybe he even had a jacuzzi on it. Right. Because God could have just shown, like, Noah, like, but you'd have to make a big one because they're giants, I assume. So you have to put, like, a big old jacuzzi in there. And who knows? Maybe it had a big old buffet bar. And, you know, like, you could just make up anything, man. Like, you got... You're just claiming that it's feasible because of your kind of standards. And you... You're claiming that, like, they used steel back then and steel didn't exist. This is God we're talking about. You don't think he could teach Noah how to make steel. And you're assuming that they didn't know what steel was in those days. Why didn't they continue to use steel then in, like, boat construction after Noah, like, got off of the ark? Why didn't they... There's a one-time thing? Why didn't they continue to use it? There's a number of different reasons why technology can get buried and kind of disappear over time. And so... Yeah, it happens. It happens. Technology kind of dissipates. You want to say technology dissipates. You know, it's kind of, like, going back to the moon, right? It does? Sure, but it's like... Oh, no, we don't have the technology that we used to have. It's the father of all humanity and it's a painful process to build back up again. And help construct this steel boat with a jacuzzi in it. You think that they would be able to pass that technology down to the next generation. And do you think they'd be able to toss down the moon technology, the technology that we used to get to the moon and use that again, right? But we lost that technology. Yes, we do. What are you talking about? Yeah, we... Oh, that's right. You debated whether the moon landing was real or not. Okay. And so we lost that technology. And so it's kind of your same standard, okay? If we can lose that technology but we can't lose that technology, that's kind of a double standard here. There's one, I guess, Amy asked if there's a juicy thing. And since I get that you're in the affirmative, I'm sitting here grilling you. I appreciate you for taking a lot of my questions because I'm grilling you. And I know that that's what I'm doing, but hey, that's how this kind of works, right? So next time, if I'm in the affirmative, you can grill me. But let's see. I want to talk about Genesis 7.4 because I did mention that. It refers to every living substance was killed, right? So for seven days, for seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights. And every living substance that I have made will I destroy from the face of the earth? I got this from the Latter-day Saints website, which I assumed you might be a little bit more comfortable with. So every living substance was wiped from the face of the earth. And I just want to get you on record that you agree that means that all the living substances that were on the face of the earth must have been in or on the ark, right? Yeah. That's your reading of it. So there were no seeds floating around someplace or plant material that could have been floating in the ocean that could have survived the flood and then grow once the floods subsided. And then maybe those rafts would have had who knows, like lizards and insects and other things, right? Like they all would have been on the ark, right? You're invoking Latter-day Saint Doctrine. And there are times in Latter-day Saint Doctrine where God took entire lands. I don't know if you've ever heard of the city of Enoch before, but the city of Enoch is an entire city before the flood that was taken up into heaven. The entire city was taken up into heaven. Was that the only city that was taken up into heaven before then? And so the whole thing with the city of Enoch is they were so righteous that the Lord took this whole city up into heaven. And after that, it's going to come back. That's the big thing about the city of Enoch. It was taken up. It was taken back. Was that the only city that had ever happened to? I don't know. There could have happened to other cities out there that could have been taken up into heaven that were brought back to the earth at one time. That is a marvelous story. Like you're just creating superhero stuff. I think I saw that movie. It wasn't that Age of Ultron where the city was pushed up into... Okay, I don't know. Listen, the thing is, every living substance was wiped off the face of the earth. You at least agree with that. So I suppose that maybe God somehow picked the city up and then delivered it back after. That's one way you're leaving it, but you at least agree with that. That happened at least once. Not a single bacterium survived, right? Not a virus. There's debate whether viruses are actually living or not, but no bacteria survived on the face of the earth. The hell would have to have been on the ark. Because they're living substances. I keep bacteria in my land, and if I don't take care of them, they die. That's for sure. Yeah. And so I'd have to have a closer look at the Hebrew on this particular instance. I haven't looked at the Hebrew on this one just yet. Okay, so there's the bacteria, right? Maybe the ancient Hebrews have some interesting insights into bacteria, perhaps. Yeah. The thing is, because King James did a bad job of translating. So do you think, because with the flood, all the waters rise, and God said, I am killing all living substances. Do you assume fish are living substances? I do assume fish are living substances. I would agree. What about like stars and coral and sponges? It's on the face of the earth. And so it's in the water that's not on the earth, is it? Wait, so like you don't consider animals living in the water as being on the earth? There's boundaries here. There are boundaries, okay? One on land versus in the water. And so bacteria in the water, that's not on the earth. You know, all these species of fish that's in the water, that's not on the face of the earth. Okay. So that means that whales and dolphins were not on the ark, I assume. They were not on the face of the earth. Unless they were crawling around on the dirt, yeah. All right. Now, what about the fact that there are marine animals and there are freshwater animals? There are animals that have to live in exquisite, like sort of clean, pristine freshwater. And if they get exposed to any sort of salinity, they will die. How do you think that those animals survive? Um, there are times when freshwater can be like, at a different layer than... Yeah, but we're talking about a flood, with it all like being pushed and... And even when that, there could be currents of freshwater that are going side by side with salt water. It doesn't instantly... Right. I believe that's called an isocline, when there's like a division between like sort of salt water and freshwater, but it's not purely fresh. That's for sure. There's definitely ions that pass from the salt water into the quote, unquote, fresh side. And but it's just less saline. And it's not going to be suitable for freshwater fish to live in. It won't. And that's presuming that we're talking about like, you know, water that is not being mixed. Uh-huh. Right. They're just kind of kind of coming to a slow contact with each other. And again, we're kind of assuming... Not what a flood is. A flood is like... Okay. And we don't know exactly what kinds of species of fish they had in those days. Again, we're kind of assuming that there were even freshwater fish on the earth in those days. And I'm not... I haven't seen anything that really makes that indication. Although... Last two minutes. I am aware of... Gotcha. Okay. I am also aware of... They've got some hot springs out here in St. George. And some people have gone and put a bunch of freshwater tropical fish in these hot springs. And they've been surviving for ages and ages. They just live there now. It's kind of... Okay. I got a question about... Which is an interesting thing about... One last thing I'm going to ask about. It was on my list of questions. How did Noah feed all the animals on the ark? Including the predators, right? Because there were predators. Yeah. What did he feed them? What did he feed them? I can only assume that they fed him meat. That's why he brought extra... Extra of the clean species so he could feed the ones... Yeah. The predators. He used the clean species to feed the predators. So when... Another huge important thing that... Because you've been talking for a long time... True. I really wanted to point out that the entire flood itself... The entire flood itself... Flooding the entire world as we know it. That is a humongous miracle. Okay. And so I think it's very, very limiting to assume that no other miracles took place at that time. Sure. Right? Which means it's not science. That's for sure. You've defined science very differently than me. And so... You include room for miracles. I include room for miracles. Yeah. And so... Yeah. When it comes to... I wish I could publish on that. I really do because I would have a lot more papers that way. Yeah. So... Yeah. That's not the standard we use. It's observable. It's observable. If it's observable, that's good. Yeah. And repeatable. Systematic. Yeah. Yeah. Observable, repeatable, systematic. And those... Yeah. And that's not what I mean. They're all really important. Yeah. All right. So... Yeah. Again, you seem to be having your own definition of miracle here. So... I mean it's pretty... Much whatever one thinks a miracle is, right? Apparently, not everyone views miracle or defines miracles the same way you do. Okay. I suppose not. So maybe people... Not everyone, apparently. All right. I suppose we could probably go to... And with that, we will start to get ready for questions. But before we do, I want to offer both of you guys the chance to tell everyone out there on the interwebs what you've got going on and your final thoughts on the topic. The floor is either one of yours. Okay. So we've been listening to Chris Thompson speak for a long time now. And he is yet to give us any kind of specific answer as to how big the arc would have need to be by today's standards. Okay. Let alone back in those days, standard. I understand the Bible is kind of vague about this point. And I'm okay with that. It's kind of vague. It's kind of relaying the concept of what took place. And that's totally fine with me. The big question here is how big would the arc have needed to be in order to be feasible? And so, yeah, we can't just look, oh, well, this is a humongous miracle. And I'm sorry, that's the only miracle that we can allow at this time. This is a time of great... Yeah. If God can create one miracle and allow that to happen, there's nothing to say that God couldn't have another miracle and also caused this to happen. And help Noah actually know how to build an arc. I'm going to give you a commandment to build an arc, but I'm not going to teach you how to build a strong arc that can actually make it. Yeah. There's a scripture that's very strong. Okay, the Lord God giveth no man a commandment unto the children of men, save ye shall prepare a way to accomplish the thing that he hath commanded them. That is 1 Nephi chapter 1 verse 5 or 3, I don't remember. But yeah, it's a really important significant scripture. And so, yeah, if God is going to give Noah a commandment, he's going to prepare a way for Noah to accomplish that thing. And he's over here, Chris Thompson is talking about plumbing. He could have taught Noah about how to kind of take care of the arc when it comes to plumbing and how to keep it clean. These kinds of things can be prepared for. And it's not like Noah never thought, oh my goodness, how am I going to do this? I'm sure he kind of went through moments. And those kind of moments were very essential for him to go and consult with the one who gave him the commandment in the first place, where he can learn how to deal with those kind of challenges. So, yeah. Thank you so very much. And with that, Dr. Chris, the floor is yours for your closing statement. Great. So I want to thank Kyle for, yes, I did dominate a bit, I know, but I'm asking a bunch of questions because there's a lot of questions associated with this topic. And Amy, thank you so much for doing a fantastic job. You are awesome. So, right, the question of Noah's arc being feasible, I think I clearly showed that it's not feasible. We're talking about this massive, massive structure that would have had to have been so enormous that obviously with like torsion and flax that it would have faced in the great flood, that it would have been leaking like a sieve. And they just did not have the technology back then. Now, Kyle's sort of appealing to just filling in these gaps. He's well aware of these gaps. Like, he knows that there are these gaps. But now he's just kind of making things up to kind of fill in the holes, sort of like you would have to fill in the holes in the arc, so that like it doesn't leak so much. And right, you can't do it. Like you can't just pretend that like all of a sudden God taught Noah plumbing and like that steel technology and that there was no evidence of any event going on through the centuries up until modern day. Like there's just, it's ludicrous to think that that's actually something that could have happened. Now, when you get to the animals, that was part of why I was talking about molecular evidence. Molecular evidence precludes any idea that these animals were from on the arc and that they were all descended from like some sort of kinds within the arc, right? It just doesn't make any sense. There's no room for all the species, certainly, that we know as them today. And even within kinds, it doesn't make any sense. Whatever that term actually means, it really doesn't make any sense. Now, yeah, with the ambiguity of the Bible, talking about substances being killed, does that also include bacteria? I mean, we're just left with like basically arguing about whether the laser on the dust star could have destroyed all around. That is essentially what this debate turns into. It's mostly a waste of time. And unfortunately, like, this is something that some people want to teach in public schools. I'm here to say, no, we're not going to do that. And yeah, so I'll leave it there. I'm happy. So a little bit about me, right? So I'm a neuroscientist. You want to check me out. I'm on the best place to find me for this kind of content is to go to my YouTube channel. It should be linked down below. And I talk about neuroscience. I also talk about creation and evolution. I do all kinds of debates. I also have a whole bunch of information about like neuroscience and teaching neuroscience. I'm going to be posting some new lectures on neuroplasticity, if that's something that anyone is interested in. So thanks for having me. Thank you to both of our interlocutors, Dr. Chris and Kyle Adams, the links of which can be found in the description below. That concludes the open discussion on did Noah's Ark exist and work, but there's still fun left. We're about to move into our Q&A section, where you can tag me in chat at Amy Newman or send in super chats, which will get your question priority read. There will also be an open mic after show on my channel, Amy Newman on the YouTubes. However, if you've ever thought of running your own after show, feel free to reach out to us here at modern day debate, because we support all sides, including yours. Plus, we're always looking for new debaters. So come on down to the ring. Though also don't forget to please hit like, follow and subscribe. It helps us reach an even larger audience and get even more fantastic debates to you, our viewers. With that, let's get into the question and answers. A big $5 super chat from O'Flamo. Kyle, when are we going to do a Noah's Ark case study in the Ark encounter? Every kind of animal in the Ark encounter for 90 days, just to be sure. I don't really follow the Ark encounter model. As I said, I believe Noah was a giant, and so that's going to tell me that the entire Ark encounter model is too small. And all right, thank you so very much for that response and that super chat. A $2 super chat from Bubble Gum Gun coming in hot. Chris is too scared to debate me 1v1, why are you running? You're right, I'm terrified. A Bubble Gum Gun, we chatted already and it was entertaining. I don't feel like you have a whole lot to say about what your model is. And I think that I'd actually be super interested in maybe hosting you and a creationist to talk about whether dogs are evolved from wolves or not. I would actually be interested in that. And we're always looking for more fantastic debates and debaters. And all right, thank you, Bubble, and your response. And a $5 super chat from Big Bad Mama. Kyle, how did Koala Bears from the Ark crawl back to Australia? Also, do you believe the animals underwent hyperspeciation post-flood? Hyperspeciation, I don't know what they mean by that. I can explain it. Okay, let me address the Koala Bears. Yeah, that's fine, just do that. And then we can talk about that. So we understand that men scattered across the face of the earth after the flood. Did they take animals with them as they traveled across the earth? Okay, so one option is, yes, the Koala Bear could have gone over there unless we have different lands that came down out of the sky that were saved kind of city of Enix style. That's another option. But I like the theory of men just taking animals with them as they scatter across the land. Okay, but the problem with that, Kyle, all right, if you just kind of focus on this, is that do you know what Koalas eat? Do I know eucalyptus leaves? Yes, the eucalyptus leaves. So like would they have the eucalyptus leaves with them? That's what the now, but I don't even know if they had Koalas in those days, really. Where did Koalas come from then? That's a good question, I don't know. And just, yeah, you're the one who believes in the whole evolution thing. Sure, right, yeah, like if you look at molecular data, if you look at the molecular data, Koalas share much more similar of their DNA to other marsupial mammals, especially those in Australia than they do to any of the placental mammals. So do you claim that Koalas always eat eucalyptus leaves and that they didn't come from somewhere? But at some point that they eventually specialized upon eucalyptus leaves, but like did the last common answers between, say, wombats and Koalas eat eucalyptus leaves? No, I don't think that they were specialized on eucalyptus leaves because wombats are, you know, they eat something different, so. Okay, yeah, thank you. All right, so I guess it was the common ancestor of wombats and Koalas that was carried over to Australia by these people. I'm saying that. Who did it, though? Like we're talking about, there were like four guys and their wives off the ark. Like who did it? Well, they had children after they got off the ark. Okay, yeah, and then it would take some time for the children to grow, wouldn't it? It would take some time for the children to grow. Right, like they're not going to put a newborn and like put a wombat-Koala mix in a raft and then, you know, say, bon voyage, good luck, good day, you know, good luck to get to Australia. Right, they didn't say that. Yeah, like I said, they could have, as their children scattered across the face of the earth, they could have taken animals with them. And they exclusively brought marsupials along with them to Australia. That's one possibility. There's a lot of different ways of looking at things. Gotcha. Okay, about hyperspeciation. I know we're dwelling on this one question, but the hyperspeciation prayer, because I like Big Bag Mama, she always asks great questions, so I want to make sure that we give some credit for that. So hyperspeciation, what she means by that, and it's kind of actually what you're getting at, is that you're suggesting that on the ark, there must have been some sort of proto ancestor of wombats and koalas, and that that's what was taken to Australia. And then they speciated over the last, I don't know, what, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 years into the different species of koalas, wombats, kangaroos, Tasmanian tigers, the Tasmanian devil. Like I presume they all just came from like, so that's what we talk about hyperspeciation. Do you believe that that's a possible mechanism that occurs naturally? Are you talking, so hyperspeciation in simple terms is like rapid evolution? I guess so, yeah. Like it's kind of what I referred to in my opening, that you would have to have hyperspeciation or hyper evolution in order to make the ark model work. Okay. Well, I definitely believe that dogs have changed over time. Sure. And so we're continually making new breeds of dogs. And so could they make new breeds of some other kind of animal? Like is the koala bear a new thing? I don't really know on that. You're saying like koalas were bred by people, even though they're not domesticated. Like koalas are actually really pretty nasty animals. Like you don't want to be, even though they're cute, you don't want to touch one, they'll bite your face off. So yeah, there's good questions involved there that I don't really know the answer to. Did man end up manipulating koalas into what they are today? That's a whole other question, I don't know. All right, we can go to the next one, Amy. You can say that, but it doesn't convince me. All right. Thank you for that super chat, big band mama, and both of our interlocutors responses. And a $5 super chat from Tim Tully. Thank you so much for the support. God save bacon, not lettuce and tomato. I think the majority of plant species would have become extinct. Okay. That's not much of a question though. Guessing more of a comment really. I hear Norman back in my head, Tim Tully $5, God save bacon, not lettuce and tomato. I think the majority of plant species would have become extinct. What he's saying is like, the Bible talks about how all the animals were on the ark and different pairs. But it doesn't really say a whole lot about plants. But obviously, that's because the ancients just thought that like plants just kind of emerged out of the ground. They didn't do a lot of thinking about plants. They would have thought, well, okay, the waters would have receded. And then all the plants would have just sprung forth from the ground. But we know that plants would not be able to tolerate the pressure of the flood. And you would have to keep those plants on board, keep them as seeds. I don't know. Maybe, but not all plants operate just from seed per se, some bud off and they require some very pristine, complex interactions with pollinators. For instance, they'd have to be certain kinds of insects that are needed in order to pollinate those plants. Or even bats. They're plants that depend upon bats to do pollination. So it's a highly intricate web that we find within life. And that includes the plants. And right, it does not make sense for it to be on the ark. I'm sorry I'm stealing your question, Kyle, but there you go. Well, yeah, I'm looking for it right now because I do recall them mentioning something about seeds and him going out and collecting seeds for different plants. And so I don't really see the issue. But you can say it doesn't make sense to you. But yeah, for him to go out and collect seeds, I have no problem with that. And we're about to get our last super chat. We still have some questions in. But if you're going to want your chat question, your burning desire that you wanted to ask either of our interlocutors, send in those super chats and it will be sent right to the front of the line. But I killed Earl sending in their four month membership chat. Kyle, please give a solution to the heat problem. Dr. Chris, you may need to explain it to them. BTW, the pitch argument was brilliant. The pitch was never there in the Hebrew. So you're just assuming that there was pitch, but it just says a covering cover for on the inside and cover on the outside. It could have been metal for all I know. And so yeah, just assuming that it was pitch is exactly that. It's just an assumption. And so you can assume that there were problems with it. But as I understand it, and I already explained this whole thing, that God's not going to give a commandment that he's not going to provide a way to handle it. And so it means kind of teaching Noah about some concepts of plumbing and even air conditioning for all I know. Yeah, it's a feasible thing for me. That's kind of the amazing thing about miracles is miracles are a feasible thing. Miracles even happen today. And so yeah, in our case. So Kyle, are you familiar with the heat problem? Am I familiar with the heat problem? I'm just familiar with your saying that miracles can't happen. No, no, that's not the heat problem. Miracles can happen, but with problems involved in those miracles. No, that's not exactly what the heat problem is. I'm happy to explain this. I'll try to give a succinct explanation. So generally, creationists believe that the entirety of the geological column post the protozoic. So from around 600 million years ago on, that's where we find animals. That's the Phanerozoic. All of that must have been laid down during Noah's flood. So they explain the origin of the geological column during that time. Now, the thing is, we can look through the geological column and see all kinds of things that would have generated an enormous amount of heat if all of that activity was compressed into a single year. So for instance, just limestone alone will generate an enormous amount of heat energy if you're going to require basically miles of limestone to be generated within a single year. Now, of course, it can't actually happen in a flood, because limestone actually requires certain very specific water conditions in order for it to form. But if you're going to require it to all happen within a single year, just limestone alone is going to generate so much heat that it would actually boil the ocean, and it's basically the energy of several nuclear bombs per kilometer on the surface of the earth. That's just from limestone. Now, when you go through and you look at, say, impact craters, because they also say that impact craters, like meteors, like also must have hit the surface of the earth during that time, same thing, we're talking about dozens and dozens of nuclear bombs that would have been set off across the earth. There's all kinds of sources, radioactivity, another thing, compressed all into a single year, must have boiled the oceans. That's the heat problem. I didn't bring it up because I know we were kind of focused on the arc, per se, but it's obviously a big issue. And it sounds to me like you're just inserting a problem with, here's a miracle, this is happening. No, no, no, it's not a miracle. Like they pretend that all this is like, this just would have occurred. Obviously, they know that God made all the rain happen and flooded the earth, but then we have to have some sort of explanation for like, why is there the geological column? And of course, most creationists say that, well, that must have happened during the flood. But when we look at the geological column, in order for all that to have occurred within a single year, it would have required so much heat that it would have boiled off the oceans many times over. That's the heat problem. I'm just telling you that there's a miracle that took place there. That's a miracle. That's what you saw the heat from. Okay, fair enough. That's miracles happen, even in today's standards, like I said. And so it's been kind of a really fascinating thing, kind of looking into modern day miracles that that can happen even in our own lives. And all right, thank you guys. Apologize for the keyboard ASMR there for a second, but I want to thank both of our interlocutors for those answers and to I Killed Earl for their membership, along with all of the fantastic members and people in chat there. We're heading on to chat questions, which there's just a few of. And so if you want to get your desired question out there, it's been hold it up and here are your favorite two interlocutors. Now is the time to do so. They have been so great. The Kentucky atheist question for Kyle. How do you discount the fact that there is zero evidence for your claims? What branch of science do you think proves any aspect of your fable? Okay, that's a loaded question. So I'm just going to ignore it. There's not zero evidence for the flood. He's just assuming that there is zero evidence and he's asserting that there is zero evidence in the question. So I don't claim there is zero evidence for the flood. I see a lot of evidence for the flood. And so, yeah, I live out here in the desert. I live pretty close to Zion National Park. And I look at all the plateaus and I've even heard of fossils up there on top of Mount Everest over there. And so, uh-oh. Oh, okay. Looks like he's frozen. I apologize for that, guys. I know there are storms headed all over. And so hopefully Kyle will join us back in a second. Let me look if there are any other questions. That's for Kyle. Or for me. Yes. Well, what I meant is I'm looking for questions for you. Oh, I see. Okay. For Kyle. No, all good. Those are for Kyle. Yeah. Do-do-do. How did animals live exclusively out in the Middle East? This is for Kyle and that's where did all the water go. Well, we have a few. I may just read out the questions for Kyle and you might want to take a kicker at him because that may end up being the wrapping of the night while you're doing that. Don't mind the video, ladies and gentlemen. I'll adjust that. But if you would like to take a crack at it, the Kentucky Atheists asked for Kyle how did civilizations like the Egyptians and Chinese continue right on through this flood without noticing or having any record whatsoever. They kept detailed records but no flood. And I'll also say if you have a question for Dr. Chris, now is definitely the time to send them in. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. I mean, that's a great point. That's one thing I didn't bring up because I was trying to focus kind of on the arc, but we have contemporaneous civilizations at that time who had no evidence of this global flood, right? There's no discussion of it whatsoever. The ancient pyramids, like the earliest ancient pyramids, actually predate when like many creationists say when the flood occurred. So it doesn't make a lot of sense. So about that, my internet died? No, you're all good. It looks like you're back. Great. There was a great question in here from what Kentucky Atheist I think it was. Yes. So the question was, Kyle, how did civilization like the Egyptians and Chinese continue right on through this flood without noticing or having any record whatsoever? They kept detailed records, but no flood. Okay, you're kind of that's another loaded question that there was no flood in there. And so as I understand it, the civilizations departed or kind of broke up after the flood happened. And so there was no Chinese back in the days of the flood. And so, of course, they're not going to keep a record of the flood when their civilization began after the flood happened. So that's the thing though. I mean, I guess you're trying to time the flood to be before when we know like there was an origination of the Chinese civilization. And my understanding is like the Chinese civilization like the basically goes back nearly 5,000 years ago. Like the archeological evidence goes even like maybe even longer than that. It went good evidence that they would have been there long before than when like the genealogy that's described in the Bible could possibly occur when you go from Noah to like King David. Like it doesn't make any sense. You're still looking at that's because you're still looking at it with presentism involved. And so I already told you about the calendars thing and about how a calendar in Alaska is going to be different than a calendar. I know people from Alaska. They use the same calendar. That's because we it's not the same. You're not going by a Hebrew calendar. Okay. And the way days are judged in Hebrew is different than the way days are judged according to the Gregorian calendar. So yeah, when you judge a day, yeah, things can get really thrown off. Yeah, like considerable amounts. And all right. Thank you for that question and the answer both locketers. But question from MXD. How did animals that live exclusively on other continents made it to the Middle East? How did they make it to the Middle East? Okay, so there's the big question right there is, did Pangee exist? There were there have been many earthquakes in time. Your model accepts continental drift. Does it not? And so I understand your model kind of puts continental drift as something that takes place over a really long time. Okay. And I get that. And yeah. And so with me, I kind of wonder, like, did that happen like before the flood? Did it happen after the flood? There's a lot of questions involved that I don't really know the answer to. And so one thing I already brought up before was that people could have taken animals with them. So if people are traveling across oceans post flood, they could have taken animals with them post flood. Okay, so one issue with your hypercontinental drift is that that also generates heat. So this is also a part of the heat problem I didn't mention. But if you're going to imagine that like the continents would be like super speeding across the ocean to go from Pangea to like where their current location is today within a year or a couple of years, it would create so much heat that it would be like literally like thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons being released all at the same time, like within square kilometers across the the entirety of the world. That's how much heat it would generate. Just that one thing alone. Okay. But I suppose a miracle was also involved. Oh, I yeah. We in the scriptures, I've read about people who command mountains to to move and they would be moved. And we look at we look at, you know, commanding the sun to stop in the sky and it stops. Right. And Gandalf did some pretty amazing things in the Lord of the Rings. So yeah, you're kind of want to discount it just because yeah, it's a miracle. And that's not true. It's wrong. Yeah. You want to you want to discount it because it was a miracle and that's this wrong to do that because miracles happen. Okay. And all right, unless someone sends in more super chats or questions, these are going to be our final two, though one looks like it was a rehashing. I think we answered the similarly the Kentucky atheists again asked Kyle, how do you solve the heat problem that the K we see points to earth billions of years old? If it is only 6000, this decay would have caused enough heat to vaporize the earth. Okay. So you're kind of inserting that there was a heat problem. Do you claim that science proves anything? You're going to mean? Yeah. Yeah. Do you claim that science proves anything? There's the weight of evidence consistent with models allows for predictions that we can test and repeat those tests. And, you know, so we can predict like how nature works. So you don't even know if there was a proofs exist in, you know, like mathematics. And I suppose like in law, I guess, but in science, we don't prove anything. It's the weight of the evidence that supports it. So you think there might have been a heat problem. And you don't think there was a heat problem because there is. That's a definitive statement. Yes. We know how geology works today. And if we're going to say, for instance. I've been talking for a long time. All right. Go ahead. Go ahead. All right. I thought that that was a question. All right. I'm stating that you can't make definitive statements if you don't believe that you have any proof for these definitive statements. All of your definitive statements should be mites. And if every single definitive statement is now void because you have no proof of anything, okay, then I don't even know what you're doing in the debate in the first place. Because you can't really do a debate just based on maybe these mites could have. That's not true. And that's not the way science works at all. It doesn't work on mites. It works on the prepondents of evidence and probability. But you're still making very different statements. And we can have a really, really high probability that it works a certain way. Okay. And it's not about mites. Like it has to be this way with a, you know, near certainty. We can never say 100 percent certain, but with near certainty that if the continents were rapidly racing across the ocean and then like the continents were being split within a couple of years or within a year, that that would generate so much heat. It would have to because of the nature of the way physics works. Like the way chemistry works. Like you basically are just saying like we like the way we look at the world now and what the way we can test things now in local experiments and understand always it is like this whenever we test it. And that's generally the case. Like it's going to be that way that what that means is that if you apply at that scale, it has to generate that level amount of heat. It just does. It has to. It's the heat problem. Yes. That's that's unless you invoke a miracle, which is basically you may not know about contradicting yourself to look at guts at Gibbons videos on the heat problem. Because she does a really great job talking about the heat problem. And basically the creationists have kind of thrown in the towel and they've done what you do, which is like, yep, you're right. It's a miracle. We cannot explain it via physical natural mechanisms. We're going to have to just invoke a miracle and they don't want to do that because really the goal is to like try to get evolution out of public schools and or to try to get creationism taught in public schools. But if you're going to call like a miracle, well then it doesn't make any sense. It's not science. They know that. That's I appreciate your your candor here. I really do like because a lot of creations are low to use the miracle word, the M word, but you do, which is great. So I think that I saw another super chat going, Amy. Just contradicting yourself. So this has to be the case is a definitive statement. Okay. What you mean to say, if science never proves anything or if you have no proof, then you should be saying this might be the case. That is the intellectually honest thing to do. But if you have no proof, then you're just being dishonest with yourself. And thank you for that question and our sponsor both interlocutors did indeed a super chat come in plus one or two more questions. So excited with all the enthusiasm out there. $5 super chat from Al. Thank you for the support. Regardless of how long daylight is per day, does Kyle believe that the frequency that days occur varies across the earth? The frequency days occur vary through across the earth. And so again, it's defining day. Is it the period of time that you see the sun in the sky? And so if we see the sun in the sky for 24 hours in Alaska or North Pole, then yes, that's going to be a much longer day in the North Pole than it would be someplace like Antarctica where they don't see the sun for 24 hours. Thank you so very much for that super chat out. We're going to move into just a few more regular questions from I killed Earl. How did Noah get all the seeds to grow super fast to feed all those animals? I'm not the one who was there. So if he had ways of actually tending to plants on the Ark, because again, we don't know how big it was. It could have been really big. It's been going to know his size. And so if he actually kind of had a greenhouse within the Ark, I don't see that as an impossibility. And so he could have had seed starters in the Ark that he ended up taking outside of the Ark. So there's so much realm of possibility here to say that it is impossible is kind of absurd to me. And so notice that my opponent here has not once said how big the Ark would have needed to be in order to be feasible. Not once has he said that. He just says it's just not feasible. It's impossible. That's that's all he's got. If it's bigger than 350 feet long. Yes, it's infeasible. Okay, you're welcome to say that. Okay, but that's again a definitive statement. Okay, which you've already said there are experience with the six mass schooners, right? Using technology from just 100 years ago. Yeah, yeah. So you've already invalidated every single definitive statement you could possibly make by saying science never proves anything. So yeah, you can't say it's impossible or infeasible if yeah, because that's a definitive statement. So I don't even know I'm debating you. Ken Spicey, enjoy the back and forth. Thank you for the question and the responses. Another from the Kentucky Atheist coming in hot. Dr. Chris, is it even possible for a family of eight to result in the genetic diversity we see among humans today? Wouldn't it take no less than 500 people to survive the environmental pressures? I think less than 500 people survive the environmental pressures. Wait, with no less than 500 people? I say coming in hot, but I think this is actually now a thing for you. Dr. Chris. Right. They're kind of setting up the cans for me to shoot down. Yes. So I appreciate that. Yes. So there's a lot of problems with the idea of genetic diversity with animals coming in pairs and then humans, you know, only like three pairs basically, right? Because Noah and his wife, they had three sons and they married these three random girls, right? They were on the arc. So all of humanity is descended from these three guys that came off the arc, Shem, Ham, and Japhit. No, there's not enough time from the arc in order to explain the current genetic diversity that we see amongst human beings. When you look at the genetic diversity just within Africa alone, it is vast. And the reason why genetic diversity is so vast within Africa is because that's where humanity evolved. Humanity was in, Homo sapiens was within Africa for a very long time. And therefore that would allow for enough time for genetic variants to come about that we use the same techniques in order for me to say that like my ancestors are from Germany and England, which I've done the genetic testing. I know that that's the case. We can do the same thing on bigger and broader scales. And within Africa, it's way too much genetic diversity to be explained by these three guys coming off the arc. Animals, it's the same thing. It's the same problem with animals. And the problem with animals is that if you have just two pair, you have a pair of animals, a male and a female, now you have inbreeding depression. What are the children of those animals going to breed with? The brothers and sisters, right? Inbreeding depression is a real serious issue. And we know when populations get less than like, say 500 and especially like 50 individuals, they start to experience inbreeding depression. This is actually something that's facing the mountain lines in Southern California because they're so isolated. We have inbreeding depression occurring in those populations. And we're talking about individuals that are a lot more than just two. It doesn't make any sense at all. How many definitive statements was that? I kind of lost count. I'm sorry. Okay, we've got the weight of all the evidence that supports this. If you want to argue that like inbreeding depression is not a thing, I'm happy to have that debate. Okay. But there's no point in debating when you don't, when you are making definitive statements that you... You can make definitive statements if you have the weight of evidence in favor of it. Then then it's not really... You're still kind of saying it might be, could possibly be, but it's not... I'm still open to the interpretation that inbreeding depression is not a thing. But the weight of the evidence shows that when populations of animals or human beings get so small that you have, you know, brothers and sisters and cousins making babies, that you get all kinds of genetic problems that occur. And we see that over and over and over again, Kyle. And this is exactly what would have happened for those animals as they came off. That's another presentism and... Okay. So apparently genetics works very differently, 4,400 years ago too. So yeah, well, we kind of look at more pure blood back in those days. Okay. Pure blood. More pure blood, a lot less defects in our blood in those days. Yeah. You're still talking about inbreeding depression, though. Inbreeding depression is kind of a complicated thing. The individuals, like the brothers and sisters still have to mate with each other, right? Yes. Yes, right. So we're talking about incest for every single animal that came off the ark, except for the clean ones, right? Because there were enough of them, except for the ones that Noah burned, because God demanded that they had to be sacrificed. I presented multiple possibilities, and one of them was a city of innate kind of possibility. And so, yeah, you're kind of ignoring that. Oh, yes. The city floating in the sky, right? You're going to go to the floating city. That was one scriptural reference that I brought up in one instance. And that wasn't mentioned in Genesis 6 or 7 that a whole city was brought up into the sky? That didn't take place during the flood. That took place before the flood. Enaclyph, yeah, before Noah did. Okay. And so the city just stayed up there until after the flood, or what? Yeah. And so all the people, okay. And so then after the flood, then the city came back to earth? Yeah. What evidence do you have that this actually occurred? Well, you just told me that this whole thing, we've got all this genetic speciation, right? And you're the one kind of pointing out this huge evidence, saying that there had to be something, otherwise we'd have all these different problems, right? And so you're already kind of asserting that there is evidence for it. Otherwise, according to you, these things just wouldn't, yeah, it doesn't make sense without it. It doesn't sound like evidence that there was a floating city above the flood and that was descended down onto earth. So that basically you're kind of, I think the problem is you're seeing that there is a big problem with the way the story is written in Genesis 6 and Genesis 7. I pointed out all these holes. Basically what you're doing is you're creating a whole new arc, the floating city above the earth. I didn't create anything that's what the scriptures are talking about. It doesn't talk about that. Okay, this is the city of Enoch, okay? The city of Enoch, that's a scripture thing for me. That's part of our doctrine. How many people were hiding in this city arc and all the animals and things that were up there? I don't know how big the city of Enoch was. All right, sounds good, man. And I will say we have five more minutes left. We don't want to respect our analogous time. However, it's been a great debate, a fantastic Q&A. I want to thank everyone in chat. A $5 super chat from I Killed Earl. We have proof for the heat problem, Kyle. Look at Hawaii and that's super slow. Now multiply that by umpteenth degree. Miracles are a BS excuse. I'm glad you agree that science is capable of proving things. Okay. Okay, thank you so very much. I Killed Earl for your super chat and the support and both for analogous. And we have one or two more. And then we are heading out a question. Well, here's to the kind of go together. We had Mr. Snoo wants to know Kyle Noah believes in Flat Earth. Noah believes in Flat Earth. Yes, that's my overall impression that Noah believes in Flat Earth. And then the kind of a follow up but in a different direction from someone from Surgeon General. What is up for Kyle? Since you believe the earth is flat and covered with a dome, where did all this water come from for this flood? There were flood gates. And so I can assume that it went out the flood gates. Okay. And that's all I can say. I know there were springs of water that were broken up. It says the earth was broken up during the flood. And so it did go back kind of the same way it came in. I'm not entirely sure of all of the mechanics behind it. And if there's other ways to the lands outside of the firmament, I don't know how all that works and exactly where there are talk. There is talk about the Antarctic passage. Did the flood go out that way? That's possible. I don't know. It's kind of a vague understanding of things, but that is what it is. I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole. And all right. This is our last question. It is going to be for either interlocutor. I think one may have more to say, but who knows which one? And so with that, where did all the water go? And this will be the last question of the night. Whoever was just answered that. No, no, like once all the water was on the earth, where did it all go? Did you answer that? We just talked about how did it get out. And so I mentioned floodgates and that's how they came in through the gates. Whatever that is, but I think the original question was I didn't mention the Antarctic passage. So the last question or two is where did all the water come from? And I would say this is kind of like a post question. This is where did all the water go? Yeah, it's a different question. Yeah, there were floodgates where water came in from the came from above. It also came from below. And so the one theory I've heard is that the earth was dunked into the water and brought back up because that's how baptism is done. When someone is baptized, they don't just pour the water onto you. At least Catholics do that, but that's not a full immersion. The earth was immersed. And so some people claim that the earth was dunked. And that's just one possible claim out there. And so there was one extra super chat that came in on the finish line. A $5 super chat from Forte in order to protect people should teaching magical thinking be regulated. It seems rather cruel to teach kids that invisible magicians exist. I kind of point to NASA with that and talk about the magicians. I have a huge problem with major textbooks today that make a lot of claims. The sun is 93 million miles away and you should believe it because I said so. That's a huge problem with it. And so I really enjoy having evidences and making claims founded on evidences. Here's my speculation and these are different reasons why you should believe my speculation. That is the way textbooks should be taught. This is so because my teacher said so or because this guy said so. And so that's my whole understanding of it. And so I hope you would agree with me on that. I mean textbooks aren't taught or written that way because... I have a series called Modern or Science Destroyed that gives instance after instance after instance of this exact thing happening. Then textbooks are filled with just things that teachers want to just say, this is just the way it is because that's not how textbooks are written. Like textbooks are written by guys like me who are expert in the field who can write about these topics with our understanding of the evidence and trying to portray to students in as clear a way as possible of what our understanding of the evidence is. Like that's the way textbooks are written. That's not what my proof shows and you've got to see my... I've been designing these textbooks. Modern or Science Destroyed. Modern or Science Destroyed. It's a series just kind of reading a typical high school science textbook and pointing out all of these different... I call them tiger traps where you make a claim but has nothing to support that claim. It just says this is so because we said so. Sure. In a textbook you can't necessarily lay out all the evidence for say every single claim because it would like take too much time. Like there's some things that just kind of have to be sort of you know that are so basic that it would be kind of silly to just lay out all the evidence but it doesn't mean that there's not evidence for it. You know like when I am illustrating something about my science I can always illustrate like this is the evidence. This is the experiments we've done. But then I draw a conclusion about what that is and then in a textbook you might just be just laying out well this is what the conclusion is. Okay. This textbook... But we have textbooks written by experts. Like they're not going to lay out like the data per se showing for instance that say Saturn exists and that it's a certain distance away from the Sun. Like you know like we have data that shows that. I'm glad that you can provide references for your claims. I'm glad that you can provide references for your claims. Okay. These texts... This textbook I'm pointing out has zero references for their claims. Okay. Zero and that's problematic. Hugely problematic especially in our day and age. So yeah. Okay. And all right I want to thank both of our interlocutors. Corey Clark sent in a $5 no question. Just feel weird not to pay for this level of entertainment entertainment right at the end. And we just want to thank you right back to all of our superchatters. All of our chatters in fact. I want to thank our interlocutors Dr. Chris and Kyle Adams. The people in chat are fantastic mods out there. And most importantly you our audience for joining us here tonight on modern day debate. We're a neutral platform. Welcome everybody from all walks of life. If you're looking for even more fantastic debates. We are all over the internet including your favorite podcasting platform. Like Apple, Spotify and Google podcasts. And if you enjoy debates or the show. Then please don't forget to like follow and subscribe. It helps us get an even wider audience. There will also be an after mic after show open mic on my channel. Amy Newman on the YouTubes. However if you've ever thought of running your own after show. Feel free to reach out to us here at modern day debate. Because we support all sides including yours. Plus we're looking for new debaters. So come on down to the ring. Plus if you love listening to debates including tonight's debate. On did Noah's Ark exist? And work with our fantastic debaters Dr. Chris and Kyle Adams. Who are here to help us find out that answer. If you would like to know what any of the guests have said tonight. All of their links are in the description below. Finally if you're looking for more back and forth 24-7-365. Feel free to check out our MDD discord. Which often throws after parties along with more online fun. And with that I am Amy Newman with modern day debate. We hope you continue having great conversations. Discussions and debates. Good night everyone. Good night. Peace.